Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 31	August 02 >

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. ✗plicit 14:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph's Senior Secondary School, Kanpur

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The 1 source provided merely confirms someone attended this school. LibStar (talk) 01:55, 1 August 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) 01:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL.--Ciudatul (talk) 11:21, 8 August 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!} 18:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG, and WP:NSCHOOL. Prof.PMarini (talk) 12:43, 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 delete‎. czar 03:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California)

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

This appears to be a part of Carmel-by-the-Sea related walled garden. The church seems to fall under WP:BRANCH and a stand-alone article is not warranted under WP:BRANCH. I've boldly re-directed but it has been objected by the creator. WP:OTHERSTUFF argument has been made, which is not a valid reason. ~~What I do see is that quite a few others that may also warrant being re-directed somewhere. I suggest REDIRECT or selective merge.~~ At this point I believe it should be deleted, because there's not much salvageable and a re-direct can be created any time. Graywalls (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Organizations, Religion, and California. Graywalls (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article was accepted by @SafariScribe:. The subject is notable based on the secondary sources provided in the article. Below are two examples that meet WP:ORG and WP:SIRS. I feel the article was well written and similiar to other articles listed here: All Saints Episcopal Church.
Hale, Sharron Lee (1980). A Tribute to Yesterday: The History of Carmel, Carmel Valley, Big Sur, Point Lobos, Carmelite Monastery, and Los Burros. Santa Cruz, California: Valley Publishers. pp. 63–64. ISBN 9780913548738. Retrieved 2024-07-08.
Hardy, Maggie (March 30, 1995). "When City Hall Was A Church". Carmel Pine Cone. Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. pp. 17, 24. Retrieved 2022-06-10.

Greg Henderson (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passing AfC only means that the review felt there's a 50/50 chance or surviving AfD, nothing beyond that. Carmel Pine Cone articles aren't unusable, but they mean very little as far as notability on a world scale encyclopedia. I do question the validity of existence of many of the local church branch articles as well. This one caught my attention, because of the pattern of Carmel-by-the-Sea walled garden matter I have been acutely aware of. Graywalls (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Churches do not have inherent notability. This one, while it may be known in its local community of Carmel, it is non-notable. It is not on the NRHP. The sources above are a hyper-local weekly Carmel newspaper, and a locally-published historical trivia book about Carmel. I would not consider this independent reliable sourcing at all. Of course locals are proud of their local church, that stands to reason, however that does not confer notability. This entry fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGCRIT, WP:SIRS, WP:NCHURCH as well as WP:GNG. It also seems to be part of the Carmel/Carmel-by-the-Sea/Monterey walled-garden of articles. Netherzone (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assessment. A secondary source by definition is a source "provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." The two cited sources in my Keep vote count for secondary sources, thus WP:SIRS. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carmel Pine Cone is ultra hyper-local and it's not even close to meeting WP:AUD and the level of coverage in that article is not what most would consider "significant coverage". This is a local unit of larger organization and a stand-alone separate article on a local church is generally not warranted. It's only outside that generally if the local church in specific meets WP:NORG as explained in WP:NCHURCH. Graywalls (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying dosn't make any sense. A newspaper is a reliable source whether it is local or national. Why would you want to erase an article that is (a) well written article, (b) demonstrates with pictures, infobox, links, and map a church in Carmel, (c) been approved by a peer during the AfC review, (d) has nine references to reliable sources, (e) part of the All Saints Episcopal Church, and (f) contains real history and designed by architect Robert R. Jones? It makes no logical sense at all. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A newspaper is a reliable source whether it is local or national. No, it's not. And the fact that you keep repeating the same mistakes and false assertions is not helpful nor indicative that you've taken any feedback on board about why you're blocked from mainspace. AfC review has no merit on AfD, and nine sources is meaningless when they're not independent and reliable. Star Mississippi 19:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:GNG a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article has 12 references to reliable sources. It has been reviewed, accepted, and published by SafariScribe per Articles for creation submission WP:AFCH. The fact that Netherzone and Graywalls continue WP:TAGTEAM my articles is questionable. Let assume good faith and understand that this article was written to provide coverage of a Episcopal Church that is historically important. The church was established in 1907, 116 years ago in a town that was just estabalishng itself. The church was designed by architect Robert R. Jones who went on the desgin the Monterey Regional Airport. The All Saints Episcopal Church page lists many U.S. All Saints Episcopal Churches. Should they be nominated too? Greg Henderson (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TAGTEAM is an essay, which means it hasn't been approved by the community, so it carries virtually no weight. And in any case, in a deletion discussion such as this, the only thing that is going to be looked at is notability and sourcing, not behavior. If you have a problem with the behavior of certain users, take them to WP:ANI with your accusations. Left guide (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, I have looked at the All Saints Episcopal Church. Look at how disproportionately California centered that list is and many of them are terribly sourced, advertorial and some not even article worthy. I've tagged and re-directed some and pruned some. The presence of pre-existing substandard article should not be an excuse to add further substandard article. Graywalls (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at least half of the buildings listed are NRHP-listed. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm not seeing any claim for the notability of the parish, and age certainly doesn't count for that. The building likewise has the kind of coverage expected in local press. Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability can be found in the following secondary sources per WP:N guidelines:
- Hale, Sharron Lee (1980). A Tribute to Yesterday: The History of Carmel, Carmel Valley, Big Sur, Point Lobos, Carmelite Monastery, and Los Burros. Santa Cruz, California. pp. 63–64. ISBN 9780913548738. Retrieved 2024-07-08.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
- Hardy, Maggie (March 30, 1995). "When City Hall Was A Church". Carmel Pine Cone. Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. pp. 17, 24. Retrieved 2022-06-10.
- Grimes, Teresa; Heumann, Leslie. "Historic Context Statement Carmel-by-the-Sea" (PDF). Leslie Heumann and Associates1994. Retrieved 2022-06-10.
Greg Henderson (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greghenderson2006, please stop spamming the same exact sources multiple times. You already presented two of those three sources in your !vote above. We know you are personally invested in saving this article as its creator, but you need to let others have a fair chance of participating in this discussion and providing input. Left guide (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no evidence of ORG level coverage, especially of the independent variety. An edit request to add a book published by the church shows the ongoing issues here. Star Mississippi 01:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GNG of the notability guidelines, an article "is suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This criteria is covered by the reliable sources in the article. WP:ORG is a seperate guideline used for organization. All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California) has already been accepted and reviewed by SafariScribe. I do not see any reason to therefore try to delete this article. Greg Henderson (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORG criteria constitutes the the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies; ORG/NORG applies to this article. Further: No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is The fact that Robert R. Jones designed it (who also designed a local airport) is of no consequence; An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. The church cannot inherit notability of the architect or the airport. Additionally, These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. As such, the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article. The third source presented, "Grimes, Teresa; Heumann, Leslie. "Historic Context Statement Carmel-by-the-Sea" (PDF). Leslie Heumann and Associates" does not count towards notability as it is not independent, it is a report paid for by the City of Carmel-by-the_Sea - work for hire. Netherzone (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note there is a direct link between All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California) and architect Robert R. Jones. This link contributes to MOS:BUILD and demonstrates coverage between All Saints Episcopal Church and the architect. The sources in these two articles contribute to WP:GNG. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Google Scholar brings up the following two books on the All Saints Episcopal Church of Carmel:
Context Statement Carmel-by-the-Sea by Teresa Grimes who has 30 years of experience in the field of historic preservation and Leslie Heumann and revised by Glory Anne Laffey

Carmel A History in Architecture by Kent Seavey, who is a historic-preservation consultant and a teacher of art and architectural history at Monterey Peninsula College

These two secondary sources should count toward notability as the authors are notable for the work they have done and for their experience in historic preservation. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but those don't count towards notability: the first one is a primary source government document, and the second one is a book from Arcadia which you have failed to convince the community as a reliable publisher despite many chances to do so during discussions at talk pages and at RSN. Aside from that, the church is only mentioned in the Arcadia book via a photo and short caption on p. 53, which falls woefully short of WP:SIGCOV. Left guide (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's already contents about the church at Robert_R._Jones#All_Saints_Episcopal_Church, so D E L E T E & Re-direct seeems like a plausible alternative. There's just no way this article warrants a stand-alone article. Graywalls (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, as explained several times already these sources do not count towards notability:
Context Statement Carmel-by-the-Sea by Teresa Grimes who has 30 years of experience in the field of historic preservation and Leslie Heumann and revised by Glory Anne Laffey because it was written as work-for-hire. The authors were paid by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea to write it. It does not matter if they have 100 years of experience between the three of them, it is a commissioned report, it is not independent, it is not secondary, and it is not reliable. And, BTW, it is not a book.

And this source, as explained already,
Carmel A History in Architecture was published by Arcadia Press, which has questionable notability and reliability. Basically their books are written for the tourist trade, Arcadia Books are not serious history and certainly not serious architectural history. They are low-quality coffee table picture book clutter, and as @Left guide mentions it's not SIGCOV either.

The Hale book is more of the same, published by Valley Publishers locally, not a reliable source, more coffee table clutter. None of the sources meet ORG or GNG criteria, and no amount of insisting they do can change this. I agree that Carmel City Hall may not be a great target for a redirect, as its notability is also questionable.

Netherzone (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Greghenderson2006:, also reliably conveying facts don't justify inclusion. One could say a certain Ford vehicle comes with Goodyear tires, which uses carbon black. https://news.goodyear.com/goodyear-collaborates-with-monolith-on-carbon-black-initial-testing-demonstrates-reduced-emissions You could dig and dig and dig about sources about where it comes from, who the company is owned by and so on. One can go-on and on and on with various sources and be factually reliable, but completely undue for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Your articles are always extremely heavy with names of companies, places, and people and seemingly, shoehorning names seem to be the primary purpose. Things like who names of construction contractor, architects, names of property owner, name of current and former owners. That sort of thing. Graywalls (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And when those names are non-notable, they become part of the walled garden as new articles. Which is precisely why so many of Greg's articles are heavily sourced to the hyper-local weekly free "newspaper" with a small circulation, The Carmel Pinecone. The Pine Cone ain't the New York Times by a loooooong shot. Netherzone (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If consensus decides to delete the All Saints Episcopal Church article, please redirect to List of Historic Buildings in Carmel-by-the-Sea. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for all That list also appears to be a part of the Carmel-by-the-Sea related walled garden. There are numerous other stand alone articles on run of the mill buildings sourced mainly to primary sources and/or Carmel Pine Cone hyper-local weekly tabloid that appear to not notability in that list. Graywalls (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carmel City Hall. I'm surprised no one has suggested this one yet. Per WP:NCHURCH, "[i]ndividual religious organizations ... must meet the notability guideline for organizations and companies or the general notability guideline or both. The fact that a religious building is listed on a major historic register such as the National Heritage List for England or the National Register of Historic Places in the U.S. does not necessarily mean that the religious organization that owns or meets in the building is notable. However, it is possible that both the building and the institution are notable independently from each other – in which case, a combined article about the institution and the building is an option." In this case, I don't see standalone notability for the new building or its congregation; the subject of most of the independent reliable sources in this article (Sharron Lee, the Pine Cone, is the older church building now home to Carmel City Hall. Sources referencing the new building are WP:TRADES (Architect and Engineer) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. But a merge can salvage any encyclopedic content on the church. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Comment I will add that under WP:NCHURCH, those restricting notability standards to WP:NORG are incorrect. The church can pass WP:GNG, but I don't think it does separate from the building that already has a page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC) I !voted on the merits of the article without any awareness about the significant community problems with the behavior of the page creator, which is now evident. To ensure the community's strong consensus comes through here I withdrawing my previous !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971:, can you clarify what it is you're asserting is incorrect? Are you saying you believe the guideline to be incorrect? Graywalls (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls I’m saying that arguing for a requirement to meet NORG for this church is incorrect. WP:CHURCH allows religious congregations/buildings to pass either GNG or NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the target article is of questionable notability and a possible candidate for AfD as well. Graywalls (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then it can be dealt with at that point. I see a stronger case to be made for the notability of Carmel City Hall as a page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I find Netherzone's thorough analysis of the sources to be most closely aligned with WP:RS guidelines. The coverage available for this church runs the gamut of various types of GNG fails: primary sources, passing mentions, indiscriminate sources, self-published sources, COI sources, paid sources, and routine announcements. Left guide (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a part of a continual drive to get every last pebble in Carmel-by-the-Sea into Wikipedia. Netherzone has nailed the source analysis. The nom has nailed the nomination. I find I can add nothing more. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a current topic at ANI, but in effect I wouldn't trust a source GregHenderson proffered to verify that the sky was blue. With the analysis by neutral editors without long histories of conflict of interest behind them, deletion is the only rational option. Ravenswing 01:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Without all of the above, this article is suitable for deletion because no outside independent sources exist. Plus, the author has an obvious conflict of interest. Haruka Amaranth 13:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of independent sources in this article. I have no COI. Why pick on this article when there are thousands of articles that have zero citations and stubs? Greg Henderson (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the reasons stated above. Axad12 (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Upon reviewing this again, I think we all need to take a seriously consider our actions here. Deleting the article about All Saints Episcopal Church is fundamentally wrong based on WP:GNG guidelines. Removing this article would contradict the guidelines for creating a new articles, which state: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." The All Saints Episcopal Church article has nine source citations, with four coming from secondary sources and the rest from primary sources. The article includes all the essential elements: short description, infoboxes, images, navigation headers, and more. Please Keep this article and, if necessary, move it to draft space to further improve it! Greg Henderson (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, upon glancing at this again, I'm entirely unmoved. My vote stands. Ravenswing 00:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More There is an interesting Wikipedia article about deleting at Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. It says: "Deletionism and inclusionism are opposing philosophies that largely developed within the community of volunteer editors of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. The terms reflect differing opinions on the appropriate scope of the encyclopedia and corresponding tendencies either to delete or to include a given encyclopedia article." I find this apropos to this discussion. Please consider this before deleting this important article about our history. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, kindly strike your second K**p !vote written in bold.

AfD participants may make several comments, but they are not permitted to !vote more than once. Netherzone (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone, I've simply removed the boldface, like I did before, which makes this the third time the user attempted to add a bolded !vote. Left guide (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide, thank you. Greg, please take note that A number of tools which parse AfDs will only recognize bolded words. which is from the AfD guidelines. So if your !vote is bolded more than once, the tool may double count a single editor's !vote. Netherzone (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's unclear whether the draft is meant to be about the parish/congregation, or the building. Either way, there's insufficient evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not sufficient, and the creator's ego doesn't help. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:02, 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 no consensus‎. I'm suprised that after all of these years I have to say this, but if your argument is, "If X is deleted, then you have to delete Y & Z. too!" is not a valid argument to make in an AFD and nothing will happen as a result of this comment. If you believe Y & Z should be deleted, then take the time to nominate them for an AFD discussion yourself. Right now, regarding this article, I don't see a consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ASEAN countries and subdivisions by minimum wage

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

Article seems to be entirely based on original research. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Economics, Geography, and Lists. C F A 💬 02:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. this falls under WP:NOTSTAT Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 04:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar with page List of countries by minimum wage and List of first-level administrative divisions by GRDP, they also contain original research. if this page was delete, kindly to delete those page too. Warm Regards. Applaused (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRUFTCRUFT, and WP:SIMPLYLINKINGTOAPOLICYPAGEDOESNOTCONSTITUTEANARGUMENTTHATSOMETHINGFAILSTOCOMPLYWITHTHEPOLICY. jp×g 🗯️ 06:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar with page List of countries by minimum wage and List of first-level administrative divisions by GRDP, they also contain original research. if this page was delete, kindly to delete those page too. Warm Regards. Applaused (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also this page will continue to expand to provinces, states, etc for teh future. Already have the source. Applaused (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Miminity, mixing countries and "subdivisions" seems a bit odd, and the fact that all it lists are cities. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per my last message, this page will continue to expand, to provinces, states, etc. still in progress, list can be waiting, or you kindly can contribute thx. Applaused (talk) 20:58, 2 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!} 04:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the list talks about cities. Except for Singapore which is its own case. I think this topic is note worthy. I recommend changing the name of the article to List of ASEAN cities by minimum wage. If you have countries, subdivisions and cities togethor, you will get an enormous list. I think you should start with cities and then build from that. If it is kept and reliable sources are used. I am in favour of keeping article. O.maximov (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors. If you can offer your opinion on this article, please cast a "vote" on what should happen to it (and why).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to pass WP:NLIST here and here. It doesn't look like a WP:BEFORE scan was done. More could be found in journals. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist but right now, looking like "No consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not an expert but appears to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. StewdioMACK (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not to WP:BADGER, but how about the sources that I listed? -1ctinus📝🗨 22:55, 28 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. czar 21:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hynek Štichauer

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. Google news yields zero. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Czech Republic. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Member of the Czech team that rode in the 2023 World Cup (the pinnacle of speedway alongside the Grand Prix), has also ridden in the highest possible league of speedway in Britain (equivalent to the football Premier league). Pyeongchang (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have added multiple non primary sources to article.

Delete. Of the non-stats refs, this is a routine transactional interview with a team promoter (primary, non-independent)

; this is a routine transactional interview with a club owner

; this is a brief transactional press release; and this is a passing mention in an injury update. Nowhere close to SIGCOV in IRS. JoelleJay (talk) 23:09, 1 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!} 00:10, 8 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!} 23:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JoelleJay analysis. FromCzech (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:22, 21 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, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Watson

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

Similiar reason to nominate as this nomination - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Metcalfe (2nd nomination)

Sources are dubious at best - the Telegraph and Auto Trader source is about a TV show in some minor-league TV station that doesn't warrant notability. His recent presenting job in Carwow only warrant notability on its own page, not on this. Hobbyist sources such as autoevolution are dubious at best. Quality of that page is dubious at best. A check per WP:BEFORE do not show much any reliable sources at all. Also fails WP:JOURNALIST.

WP:ATD will be merge to carwow SpacedFarmer (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Transportation, and United Kingdom. C F A 💬 03:01, 1 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!} 00:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources in the article look like announcements and others the writings of the subject. Search returns nothing tangible Ednabrenze (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Merge to Carwow
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not believe a merge is the appropriate decision here. Per the nomination, this article doesn’t appear to meet the requirements for a Wiki article and should be deleted. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:55, 17 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.