Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 30	August 01 >

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 delete‎. The consensus is that WP:NACTOR is not met at this point in the subject's career. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudeepa Singh

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 06:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Advertising, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with at least 2 significant roles in notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her only notable role is in Baalveer, rest are recurring/guest roles. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 06:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Her role in Action Replayy is also significant. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, her role in Action Replayy is recurring; I have watched the movie, and she is not even listed as part of the starring cast. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 16:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it can be considered significant. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, nothing is special. Youknow? (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With only one significant role in Baalveer, the actress fails WP:NACTOR. No other roles were notable and significant that got any coverage. RangersRus (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The consensus is that this article should be Deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Didwana

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

The article violates WP:OR and is seemingly a part of the recent caste glorification drive initiated by some editors. There is no significant coverage for this battle from any academic source. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems like You are really not checking the citations?
https://archive.org/details/rajput-maratha-relations-1707-1760-ad-vol.-1/page/504/mode/1up

Pg 498-501 has a four page Coverage even with the name of the battle mentioned as Battle of Didwana

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.111093/page/n128/mode/1up

pg 39 has one page Coverage

https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_DLQeSBLpUwsC

Has two page Coverage Chauthcollector (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable and insignificant battle. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mentions from some sources are not enough to meet WP:GNG. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : The article fails to establish notability, moreover no sources has mention of such battle. Raged Pratihar (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The consensus is that this article should be Deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Merta (1754)

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

The article violates WP:OR and is seemingly a part of the recent caste glorification drive initiated by some editors. There is no significant coverage for this battle from any academic source. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep did you mind checking the soruces?

https://archive.org/details/rajput-maratha-relations-1707-1760-ad-vol.-1/page/504/mode/1up

Pg 480-482 has a three page Coverage even with the name of the battle mentioned as Battle of Merta

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.111093/page/n128/mode/1up

pg 20-21 has one page Coverage

https://archive.org/details/maratha-rajput-relations-during-the-18th-century/page/105/mode/1up

Pg 80 -82 has a three page Coverage also with the name of the Battle Mentioned Chauthcollector (talk) 04:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked all above sources and don't really see any reason to host a standalone article for this battle. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : The article fails to establish notability, moreover no sources has mention of such battle. Raged Pratihar (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Kota

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

The article violates WP:OR and is seemingly a part of the recent caste glorification drive initiated by some editors. There is no significant coverage for this battle from any academic source. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : The article fails to establish notability as it lacks extensive independent sources and coverage.Nxcrypto Message 16:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Kumar (producer)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 06:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Bihar, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a lot of news story talking about the guy on Google News Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we don't go by Google hits but by reliable secondary sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. No SIGCOV or any notability guideline met. Has a promotional tone too. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. Article standing on nothing and there is nothing to support its existence here. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus here after two relistings and a Soft Deletion is not an option so I'm closing this as a No Consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writesonic

AfDs for this article:

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

Renomination: It does not meet WP:NCORP. Most sources here are native advertisement with only a few exceptions, which are passing mentions and not in-depth coverage. StrongDeterrence (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find articles that are about the software, but not the company: Writesonic at AI-scale-up, Writesonic Review. Both of those are quite long. Could this article be changed to be more about the software rather than the company? If so, I think it could be properly sourced. Lamona (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article can be changed around to be about the product/service and of course those sources should meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 00:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maita Sanchez

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NACTRESS or WP:GNG. Nothing that satisfies WP:ANYBIO here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, and Philippines. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails 1 WP:NPOL, WP:BASIC. User:Indo360 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have significantly expanded the article since the nomination. She has over 20+ film credits to her name, though many of which are secondary roles, but some feature her as the lead. She has received multiple shared awards for her work in El Presidente (film). A Two-time mayor and was featured on the Metro Society Magazine cover, December 2012 edition. At this point, the article passes WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it looks like this article has been rewritten. Please review its current version.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources added by Jeraxmoira seem to be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Oh my. @Jeraxmoira: This is what I call expansion. @Liz: you might want to close this as I've withdrawn this nom. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mister World countries

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

Insufficient sourcing. The single source here is Pageantopolis, a personal website described by consensus at WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources as not suitable for establishing notability. It's been tagged as under-referenced for a decade without any improvement and is unlikely to change. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, whatever. Admins always do what they please, so just delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcetw (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion. If admins did what they please, they wouldn't be admins for long. I'd like to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 San Fernando, Pampanga#Education. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Belle Montessori School

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

No source on its current state and for most of its history served as a surrogate bulletin board for the school. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I know Google is not good in providing Asian sources, but I can not find reliable sources. What I find are directories, social media and do-it-yourself-websites, not in-depth sources. The Banner talk 08:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Silang,_Cavite#Education per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 San Fernando, Pampanga#Education. ✗plicit 11:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Montessori Center

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

No source for most of its history. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Fernando, Pampanga#Education, fails WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Fernando, Pampanga#Education: No standalone article notability with SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 San Fernando, Pampanga#Education. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion on User talk:Liz, it turns out the correct target article is List of schools in Bacoor#Private schools. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montessori dei San Lorenzo

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

No source since its creation back in 2011. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Fernando, Pampanga#Education, per nom and it also fails WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I know Google is not good in providing Asian sources, but I can not find reliable sources. What I find are directories, social media and do-it-yourself-websites, not in-depth sources. The Banner talk 09:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Fernando, Pampanga#Education per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 San Ildefonso, Bulacan#Education. RL0919 (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goldenville School of Montessori

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

Virtually unsourced. One singular source, which appears to be an unrelated opinion poll on Senate elections. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to San_Ildefonso,_Bulacan#Education per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to San Ildefonso: Per Lenticel. Standalone article is not justified with no GNG met. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 00:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habari

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Per the articles talk page this article has had two substantive nominations for deletion and the main advocate for keeping this article - User:Morydd - is hardly an unbiased source, considering that they're also a member of the Habari project on Github: https://github.com/morydd I find the original nominators arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habari (2nd nomination) to be valid, more so now that the project has been now abandoned for ~10 years. Furthermore, the last afd was more than 15 years ago.

The sources provided are not of sufficient quality to establish notability:

"2008 SourceForge Community Choice Awards in the category of Best New Project". All this seems to have amounted to was inclusion in a list of other projects, near as I can tell. That's hardly significant coverage.

Smashing Magazine. Habari got a two sentence mention in that article and altho that's more than Habari got as a result of its inclusion in the 2008 SourceForge Community Choice Awards in the category of Best New Project it's not enough to constitute significant coverage.

Matt Mullenweg's blog. Two sentences and that's it.

TerraFrost (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough RSes, seems to be a byproduct of contemporary recentism. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dead project, I could find no sources about it. Badbluebus (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, given that this is the 5th time this article has been brought to AFD, I would like to see more support from experienced editors before deleting as it survived earlier AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz The 3rd and 4th nominations were brought forth by a disruptive editor who did not have any valid reason for deletion, and thus the AfDs were speedily closed. I think, in essence, the article has only survived 1 AfD; the first nomination resulted in a delete. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Habari was a finalist in the 2008 SourceForge Community Choice Awards in the category of Best New Project. Together with the other references, I think that adds up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See TerraFrost's bullet points. Part of the reason we require SIGCOV is so that we can actually cite and cover the subject. Not all awards are notable, and a community choice awards, especially for Best New Project, even within SourceForge, doesn't seem very notable. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blogs, download sites... that's about all I can find in my searches. Nothing we can use for notability. Sourcing now in the article isn't really helpful either. Not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing enough for WP:GNG here; attempts to find academic or industry press discussion came up short. No obvious redirect targets. Suriname0 (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 02:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie Limoki

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

Does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Absence of significant coverage. Was only able to find a routine transfer announcement and stats pages with online search. C 679 03:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. C 679 03:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 03:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references added. IdiotSavant (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article are: 1. stats profile N. 2, 4, 8, 9: posts by the governing sports body N. 3. Press release in Solomon Star N. 5. Name drop in press release in Solomon Star N. 6. Press release in Fiji Times N. 7. Routine transactional announcement in Fiji Live N. Nothing here is even clearly independent, let alone SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I could even propose draftify, but for a Solomon Islands under-17 player it really is very difficult to speculate about notability. Svartner (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per source analysis by JoelleJay. To conclude with Svartner's reply: Considering how small the country is, I don't see any indication Limoki will become more notable in the future, so I also disagree with draftify. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This level of football is so, so low - resulting in a lack of independent coverage. Geschichte (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Viacom18#Owned channels. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colors Gujarati

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

Lot's of churnalism and unreliable sources, including a lot of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Previously tagged but still cannot find anything in a WP:BEFORE. If anything, recommending a redirect to Viacom18 as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "only Gujarati general entertainment channel in the market", as says a bylined article in the TOI. Also see: https://www.afaqs.com/news/media/55161_viacom18-launches-colors-gujarati-cinema-regional-cluster-revenue-grew-by-22-sudhanshu-vats ; https://www.agencyreporter.com/viacom18-launches-colors-gujarati-cinema-2/ or Books : Regional Language Television in India: Profiles and Perspectives (2021); Indian Silver Screen (2021), for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two links are just regurgitation of announcements that the channel is going to launch. Anyone can put out a press release that gets picked up by the media and re-run in different news outlets. This is not something that would count towards notability. I also do not put much stock in TOI, especially since it looks like it will not be considered towards notability based on current WP:RSN discussion (to be determined of course). --CNMall41 (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect but to Colors TV. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think redirect to Viacom18#Owned_channels is better. RangersRus (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Viacom18#Owned_channels. Poor sources on the page to establish significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus and two different redirect target articles suggested,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Viacom18: Per RR. Doesn't validate a standalone article for the channel since I couldn't find any sources establishing GNG The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 01:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Krautil

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

I don't see how she meets WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources merely confirm facts about her and I found nothing in a google news search. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have already added more references to this article to show notability. She has been written about in the Australian press with some brief bios in those articles. She advised the Federal Government and argued for innovative labour policies for women long before they were legislated by government such as paid maternity leave, flexible working hours, better access to child care. I will add more to her article later.LPascal (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment- Also she has brief bios in Who's Who in Australia 2002 and 2009 and is listed in the Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation https://www.eoas.info/biogs/P004276b.htm LPascal (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: A short bio and interview is here and shows some of her impact on government policy. https://aclw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Leadership-Interviews-alphabetical.pdf by Australian Centre for Leadership for Women https://aclw.org/research-and-publications/leadership-interviews/leadership-interviews/LPascal (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if an interview would be a primary source. ACLW invited her for an interview. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sources are either not reliable or not providing sufficient support to meet WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you think are not reliable?LPascal (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the available sources don't demonstrate GNG here. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors (one of the participants here has just been indefinitely blocked).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 24 July 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) 03:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is important enough. Also there are more good references available to add to this article. Here is one: "Fiona Krautil produced a discussion pack on ‘What gets in the way of Women’s Advancement?’ for discussion at the Talent Council and the Succession Council, both of which exist to identify and develop high potential people." [1] Rockycape (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That link doesn't establish notability and is not WP:SIGCOV. The fact that she produced a discussion pack doesn't really advance notability. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article is important but needs more improvements with references and details. my opinion is to keep the article. Yakov-kobi (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO with a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Several sources exist but they are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (e.g. Sydney Morning Herald), WP:TRADES publications (e.g. Lawyer's Weekly) and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (e.g. official bios). At first I thought her entry in the Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation might qualify her, but it does not appear to be a "dictionary of national biography" (which would be the Australian Dictionary of Biography, where Krautil does not appear) per WP:ANYBIO criterion 3; not only is it not the national biographical dictionary, it appears to be a bullet-point listing of a few posts and articles by her -- not an encyclopedic entry on her life and significance. (The EASI also appears to accept user-submitted content, potentially making it WP:USERGENERATED). All told, an apparently accomplished individual who does *not* pass notability guidelines. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dclemens1971, your final comment, an apparently accomplished individual who does pass notability guidelines., is in conflict with your argument to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz thanks for flagging, that was a typo—now fixed! Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:18, 7 August 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!} 02:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The WP:BURDEN of proof is on those wishing to insert or keep material. Here we have an article about a BLP subject, sourced to interviews, passing mentions, and user-generated content. Only keep assertions in this process so far appear as applicable as personal opinions. Burden is not met. My reasonable BEFORE finds nothing useful. Fails ANYBIO, GNG, and AUTHOR. I thank User:Dclemens1971 for their source analysis. BusterD (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - head of government department is sufficient notability, in addition to the sources cited above should be sufficient to keep the article for now. Cavepavonem (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no inherent notability with being head of a government department. LibStar (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion above has already challenged the sources. Can you rebut the analysis showing they do not qualify instead of just asserting they are sufficient? Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited assertions of notability which are solely personal opinions aren't usually compelling. A lot of them have been made here. These opinions are neither sourced nor policy-based. BusterD (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wild & Bare

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Searching throws up articles about the Founder, but trivial coverage about the organisation. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikilover3509 (talk) 2:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. CptViraj (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like the only salvageable information is related to the founder, since sources related to Wild & Bare are trivial/daily news with no lasting impact. Maybe an article could be created on Jean Alberti and the content here merged and redirected. Recon rabbit 20:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 31 July 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 of the company. As it stands, the article reads like a promotional leaflet and as mentioned above, most of the content concerns the "founder", not the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hugh Laurie#Writing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Paper Soldier

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

Article on a book that appears to have never come out. Fails WP:NBOOK - it is briefly mentioned in a few articles, but never as the primary subject. Astaire (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Astaire (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be a film with this same name... Sourcing from two interviews don't help prove notability. I can't find anything about this book; delete for not meeting notability and a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hugh Laurie. It's already mentioned there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hugh Laurie#Writing. Possible search term for an indefinitively delayed book, article may be resurrected unbureaucratically if the book ever gets published. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hugh Laurie#Writing per above. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senarath Liyana Arachchi

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Astrology, and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With no comments after a second relist, I don't want to relist it again. I don't see a consensus here with a strong Keep opinion expressed. But editors interested in a possible Redirect can discuss this outside of an AFD discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khais Millen

AfDs for this article:

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

Immediately refunded after soft deletion in 2023 but no change to address concerns in first AfD. Film writer/director who does not pass WP:GNG, WP:NCREATIVE, WP:NBIO. Most sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS if they mention him at all; there's an interview that's a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and a single example of WP:SIGCOV that exhibits all the hallmarks of unreliable content of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Not enough to pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: fairly meets WP:DIRECTOR AND WP:CREATIVE with at least 3 2 notable films directed and 3 2 written (not mentioning the fact he produced. 2); the said films are notable creations that received independent and in-depth coverage mentioning him. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:DIRECTOR are you referring to with "three notable films"? (Only two films he has been involved in even have en-wiki pages and only one of those he directed.) The only criterion I could plausibly see cited is "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work," but there's no evidence that any of his works are "significant or well-known." Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I consider his debut film as director notable enough. See coverage about it online. It has no page yet on WP, true. Added 2 links to the article. Writer: my bad, I had counted Lipstick, which is a short. Even if it's only two or even if it it was only one, he would pass both SNGs because these works can be considered significant, as coverage shows. I'll leave it at that as he is a really clear pass imv.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC) (number of significant films; clarification: 3 or 4 films including 2 directed (Thala; and I count Aakashvani), 2 written (Adithattu and Thala, to which one can add again Aakashvani)); the 1st has received a significant award and is clearly significant imv).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the opening assertion in the nomination: sorry but no change to address concerns in first AfD is an inaccurate statement.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, no substantive change. The addition of WP:TRIVIALMENTION citations does not address the concerns in the AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. If those mentions (trivial or not) allow to verify he had an essential role in notable productions they do address the concerns, especially as one mentioned the award for Best Second film that was not mentioned before, unless I am mistaken. I remember checking them (or even adding some) myself back then. I should leave it at that that, as I had said, sorry. Thanks, anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. As I noted in the previous AFD, a film he wrote won a second-place regional film award, and for another of his films a child actor won a regional award. Per nomination and subsequent comments by nominator, coverage of the director himself is insufficient per WP:NFILMMAKER. Wikishovel (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect (presumably to Thala (film)) would be acceptable to me as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either to Thala (the apparently better known film) or to Adithattu (the film that won an award) would be fine by me. Wikishovel (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Base One (rapper)

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

I found no significant coverage. The only three references in the article are interviews, with two of them being on unreliable sources. SL93 (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. SL93 (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Request (broadcasting). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Request

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think this is a thing and I don't understand how the second paragraph relates to the topic. Fuddle (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge (the parts that actually relate to the topic) with Request (broadcasting) because having both seems like an unnecessary duplicate. From my brief Google, I have found that an 'all request' does exist All Request Eurovision Party with Richie Anderson: Richie plays two hours of Eurovision party requests. I don't think this needs an entire article for it. Svampesky (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Request (broadcasting). There is nothing to merge at the moment because there is no meaningful content cited to reliable sources. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. This does exist as a term, but it's far from clear (and not at all reliably sourced) that it would constitute a standalone concept independently of the basic concept of radio stations playing songs requested by listeners. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I see No consensus here in this AFD and I don't expect one to emerge after a final relisting. Alternatively, editors interested in a Merge or Redirect can now make a proposal on the article talk page and see if you find support there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time War (Doctor Who)

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

Wikipedia is not the TARDIS data core. This article is a nonsense. It is written as though describing a real conflict. Most, if not all, of the references are primary sources/the actual episodes of the show where this war is mentioned, including the BBC (the show's production company), Big Finish Productions (the production company for the audio adaptation), BBC Books (the publisher for book adaptations), and Doctor Who fan sites. From my research, all sources related to this fictional-war originate either those primary sources, or from standard run-of-the-mill coverage to promote an episode, with only passing mention of the fictional-war, and no analysis of it. ~~Delete!~~ Per Pokelego999's comment, I'm amending to Merge with Doctor Who (mainly the non-primary-sourced material). Svampesky (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC), amended 02:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Svampesky (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage is a bit buried in the depths of promo material, but a brief search yielded some results. Reviews of The Day of the Doctor (The 50th Anniversary special which got a lot more in-depth coverage than most episodes) tend to yield bits (Such as this AV Club source). I found a Gizmodo source discussing the War in its entirety, though its coverage is smattered throughout the article. This book has a whole chapter on the War, while this book seems to discuss it in association with The Doctor's character a fair bit. A brief glance at this book and this book yields promise, as do a few hits for books in regards to Psychology about the Doctor in association with the War, but admittedly these I can't fully access enough to judge. Given the Time War's large role in the narrative of Doctor Who and its effect on the Doctor's character, I'd warrant there's probably more discussing its role within the context of the show, but I only did a brief search, so I'd be happy for other editors to also do searches to see what else I didn't see. Either way, the Time War definitely seems to have coverage, if scattered, that shows its notability, though as the nom said the article definitely needs a rewrite at some point in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research. I've amended my nomination to merge. [T]he Time War's large role in the narrative of Doctor Who and its effect on the Doctor's character, yes; but outside of the Doctor Who fictional-universe, I still don't think it passes any of the points of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV for it to have a stand-alone article. Svampesky (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know that's a non sequitur, right? Nothing is notable inside or outside of any fictional universe; they're either notable, or they are not. We don't have to have documentation of time war reenactors in order to keep the article... we just need independent reliable sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. In point of fact, "real world" manifestations such as toys are often ignored entirely as non-independent (the same people are making money off of them...) when assessing the notability of fictional topics that CAN be so manifested. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note. One of the books you cited The Scientific Secrets of Doctor Who (ISBN: 9781849909389) is published by BBC Books, which is a subsidiary of the production company of the show. Svampesky (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I'm unaware of the circumstances with the BBC (Since its publishing is largely unrelated to the original show) so I'm not sure if it has a use case or not. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although commentary is needed in the article, that can be done with the sources suggested above, even if discounting the BBC book, and therefore notability is established. Daranios (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either History of the Time Lords#The Time War (sketchy notability itself) or Time Lord (where it is mentioned throughout). I am having difficulty imagining how this article would even look if written with an encyclopedic out-of universe approach (MOS:REALWORLD): Plot doesn't have production design or casting. In short: I believe this topic is unfixable as a standalone article, even with the sources provided above. I wouldn't mind selective merging. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Time War was a mostly off-screen event, so casting information is irrelevant. Either way, I'd propose an organization of:

-Developmental information (I know it exists as I've seen bits of it floating around before and I'm aware of a few sources I'd need to double check, but I'd need to do a more thorough search than what I've done above)

-Basic summary of the event, which could probably condense the information in the article to a readable state.

-Reception and Analysis of the War's role in the show's narrative.

I'm confused what you mean by the article being entirely unfixable. It needs a massive rewrite, but it's not undoable with more in-depth rewrites and research. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My nomination still stands as 'Merge with Doctor Who', but I am willing to collaborate on a Draft: of this article if the outcome of this AfD is 'Draftify' and explore additional secondary sources with other editors who are interested in contributing. Please, drop a message on my talk page to notify me if this happens. Svampesky (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The Time War is literally synonymous with the plot of Doctor Who. It is what the entire series is about. We already have Doctor Who, History of Doctor Who, History of the Time Lords, Time Lord, and Whoniverse to deal with this information. Several of those also have major gaps in sourcing. Do we really need multiple poorly written articles about the same thing? Please let's start with one article with independent reliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't true; the Time War is a relatively small part of the overall story of Doctor Who. Toughpigs (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rule out Doctor Who and History of Doctor Who, as those are primarily out of universe production information. In the case of the Time War, analysis of its role wouldn't be fitting to place in an article like one of those. Whoniverse additionally is more focused on the actual umbrella brand these days. I'm partial to one of the Time Lord articles should it come down to that, but I'd have to take a closer look to see which is better (I'd honestly AfD History of the Time Lords as well- that article is in a very bad state and can easily be condensed to the original Time Lord article) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete checking through the article shows there is nothing there to assert WP:SIGCOV. Sources are nothing but mainly of BBC and affliated sources, per WP:PRIMARY. It maybe notable to the Who fanbase but is it notable for Wikipedia. Articles like this needs to be put out of its misery, fans should be reminded that Wikipedia is not Fandom. WP:ATD will be a redirect SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on the sources listed above? Given your rationale is mostly focused on the current state, I'm curious about the above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Books is WP:PRIMARY. gizmodo is fine, that's one in. As with The Scientific Secrets of Doctor Who, I don't know how much is it about the subject to save it from deletion. As with Religion and Doctor Who, I feel there is a small amount is given to the subject. I feel there is not enough to save itself from a merger, which I think is the best outcome. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can't do further research on the subject later, given my search was rather light. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for the time being; WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article has been tagged as needing attention, so a good-faith attempt to fix the article should be the first step. If, after removing everything that doesn't meet the required standards, the article still doesn't meet WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV, then we can return to the question of deleting or merging it. I don't think we can discuss merging now as the article is far too long for a simple merge. So I come back, again, to - fix the article first. (ETA: forgot to say, WP:TARDIS is an essay, not a guideline; for a convincing deletion argument, I would like to see actual WP guidelines referenced as well, to clearly demonstrate the official standards not met).

JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JustAnotherCompanion: The notices have been on the page for over two years. As I said above, my nomination remains; but I'm willing to collaborate with editors if this AfD closes as draftify and we restart it from scratch in the Draft: space and work with secondary sources. Svampesky (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found some more sources including this one. This one has some scattered bits on how it affected the Doctor's psychology, this one has some brief bits on its production history, this seems to be promising but I can't scan it entirely. The main problem I'm having with my search is that there are a lot of hits but I can't gauge coverage due to the amount of paywalls blocking me (Especially with Scholar, where there a lot of promising hits on things like war and psychology). It seems highly promising nonetheless given what I can preview though, but if anyone can gauge any of the Scholar sources I'd greatly appreciate it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an AfD outcome per the above additional sourcing. No objection to further merging as a consensus discussion (but not forced by AfD) outcome. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a small consensus to Keep this article but even supporters of this position agree that the article needs an overhaul. But I doubt it can be rewritten during the period of this AFD though. Please review sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Time Lord, per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:PRESERVE. The sources heavily cover this as part of their coverage of the Time Lords, and I don't see separate WP:SIGCOV for different articles covering basically the same thing.
Most !votes consent to a merge/redirect. SpacedFarmer and the AFD nominator are delete !votes who have suggested a redirect. Pokelego999 and JClemens are keep !votes who are considering merge targets. JustAnotherCompanion would accept a potential merge, but they have concerns about doing it too quickly or clumsily. The easiest way to reach a consensus is to close this as a merge, and allow the tag to sit there as long as needed to import anything that isn't already covered at Time Lord. The amount of content to WP:PRESERVE can be determined through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above, Merge/Redirect to Time Lord. MohReddy (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: My previous relisting comment stands. I do not see a consensus to Merge or Redirect and I don't see those arguing to Keep as suggesting it as their choice, at best, Merge/Redirect is preferable to Deletion but I see very limited support for Deletion. Even the nominator is suggesting Merge over Deletion. Right now, there is No consensus but I'd still like to see a review of sources brought up in this discussion. Of course, closers work independently and another closer might see this situation differently but this is what I see from reviewing this discussion a second time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be WP:ALLPLOT, and I don't see anything fit for merge. The article is a relic of the before-FANDOM days when anything and everything was permitted. The merge arguments are clearly motivated by fan sentiment rather than policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Would you accept a redirect or a partial merge? The other delete !votes (SpacedFarmer and Svampesky) have commented that they would accept that, in order to find an WP:ATD that looks for WP:CONSENSUS with most of the keep !votes, who have also suggested a merge as acceptable. The amount of content to merge could then be resolved through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd accept a redirect if that means it won't come to a "no consensus" closure. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see above sources were found. Your argument seems to the in the lane of WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Additionally not to long ago additional time war content was released which may be noteable in its own right. See [2][3][4] Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social Sciences University of Ankara

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

The page was a redirect of a different university so i deleted the redirect and now the page is empty Editor of Universities (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now the page is translated. - Altenmann >talk 02:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The nom means that Social Sciences University of Ankara i.e., tr:Ankara Sosyal Bilimler Üniversitesi is not University of Ankara. - Altenmann >talk 00:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify: Now it is translated, seems notable, but unreferenced, i.e., needs work. - Altenmann >talk 02:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notes: I have repaired some malformed syntax in this nomination by reapplying {{subst:afd2}}. I am also not sure if simply blanking the previous redirect (which is, on a technical level, not the same as deletion) to bring this to AfD was entirely correct — redirects are generally handled at RfD, but in looking at the page history this could also be interpreted as an objection to a blank-and-redirect from 2019 (AfDs in that realm normally restore the article content, often concurrently with the nomination, but that was unsourced so I'm hesitant to do so here, even procedurally). (The BLAR was contested at the time too, but with Turkish-language content that does not need to return.) Beyond that I provide no opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nothing resembling a WP:DELREASON has been given. Geschichte (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte: When it was nominated it was wrong redirect. Now the page is translated from tr-wiki, but unreferennced. - Altenmann >talk 02:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although this article has remained unsourced since its creation, I've restored the version before it redirected to the wrong article and a promotional account added content in the Turkish language. The primary question here should be whether this institution is notable. A quick preliminary search doesn't return much independent and reliable coverage. Might have to dig further to find appropriate sources. Aintabli (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have enough unreferenced AI translated garbage as it is. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We generally keep state-established universities, as this one clearly is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. It's hard to make sense of how this page has evolved but there is clearly no consensus here yet on what should happen with it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp. Mccapra (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshneq I Palestinian Campaign

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

Incoherent page created by a non-extended-confirmed user conflating an Ancient Egyptian campaign in Palestine (region) with modern-day Palestinians, with a map of the Gaza Strip.

If anything, the historical campaign should be discussed at Shoshenq I instead, where a much more accurate summary is already present. There is no current need for a split article, let alone one that violates a CTOP's ECR restriction by conflating it with recent events. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Egypt, Israel, and Palestine. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Taking into account that AFDISNOTCLEANUP, the article is foremost a premature SPINOFF. And even if more was written, since little is known, any article would be quite the repetition with others. The conquest is already mentioned at Shoshenq I so not really against redirecting either to Shoshenq I#Chronology. Still, the article has just been created and probably not a great name for a redirect, so delete is the preferred way forward. gidonb (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Srnec (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Public School

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced for 11 years. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Notability of schools now much stricter since last AfD. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources other than their own website, which isn't working. No argument to keep in the previous AFD beyond "it has a secondary school", which I can't verify. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I know Google is not good in providing Asian sources, but I can not find reliable sources. What I find are directories, social media and do-it-yourself-websites, not in-depth sources. The prior AfD is irrelevant due to a later RfC. The Banner talk 09:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 , with no restriction on a re-nomination in a month or two if desired by any editor. Daniel (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Klover

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

I'm not completely sure that this band is notable. I was able to find a description of the band in Trouser Press, a brief review by Robert Christgau (!), a brief review by Visions [de], and an interview with a bit said about Klover. Edit: Wow, I didn't even notice that two of those are already linked in the article. toweli (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Massachusetts. toweli (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources uncovered by the WP:BEFORE are good. A bit slight for a standalone article. Therefore a slight ~~merge~~ to Gang Green#Second hiatus (1990–1995). There are a number of possible redirect targets; I chose this because of what Trouser Press wrote: "Klöver has roots in the mighty tradition of Boston’s Bud-guzzling skatepunks, Gang Green, in the persons of guitarist Chris Doherty and drummer Brian Betzger. [...] As of early ’96, however, Klöver had folded and Gang Green was back in action." Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are usually some reliable sources to be found for major label albums released before the early/mid-2000s, when both the print media and music businesses were healthier. There are mid-to-longish articles in The Morning Call, The Boston Globe, and Telegram & Gazette, with reviews in the Daily Herald and Daily Breeze. An entry in the Encyclopedia of Punk Music and Culture--can't read it, but I'm sure it's only a small paragraph or two... Caro7200 (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still looking for closure opinions from commenters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above. Seems like a decent article could be written here. An editorial merge decision could be done later if future people disagree. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as to not err on the side of uncertaintly. I have no idea what the articles mentioned by Caro contain, though. Geschichte (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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