Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 11: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:54, 18 April 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 10	April 12 >

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 no consensus‎. There's no consensus here for a particular outcome. Discussion about the article can continue on its talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auspex International

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

All the coverage relates it to being set up by people from Cambridge Analytica following the scandal Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and England. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Went into voluntary liquidation in October 2023 according to documents filed at Companies House.[1]. No coverage found of this, so assuming this is the same company it suggests Auspex Int. isn't notable. Its website appears non-operational. Attracted some coverage in the wake of Cambridge Analytica: on its formation, BBC [2] and FT [3] Later coverage: Byline Times [4] The company is mentioned in a number of books relating to Cambridge Analytica. Possible redirect to Cambridge Analytica#Aftermath, if as looks likely, there is insufficient depth of coverage to pass WP:NCORP for a separate article. Rupples (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is quite unknown for the most part. Few have heard about it probably. Rrjmrrr (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it easily passes WP:SIGCOV, based on several articles about it in reliable sources. If it needs to be updated, then that can be done via ordinary editing processes. Bearian (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cambridge Analytica#Aftermath. Just found out on examining the sources that three had been posted across by the article's creator from Data Propria, a company also set up in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal and were about that company with no mention of Auspex, so not relevant; I've now removed these. The Data economy source is written by the MD of Auspex, Mark Turnbull and Auspex is only mentioned; the article is about Cambridge Analytica. The two BBC sources are the same so I've now consolidated and the BBC and Forbes sources are about the company starting up — ~~no follow up coverage of the company has been identified~~. This does not amount to significant coverage under WP:ORGDEPTH. No reporting found of the company's liquidation, so not remembered for its few years of activity, but merely as fallout from Cambridge Analytica. Rupples (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Correction: the only SIGCOV identified so far is the Byeline Times article[5], but more such sources are required to fulfill the multiple sources requirement. The book sources are mere mentions of its start up, again in the light of Cambridge Analytica. Rupples (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is discussed at length in numerous notable sources.--2601:345:0:52A0:E165:4C72:14FB:3B9A (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)— 2601:345:0:52A0:E165:4C72:14FB:3B9A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep the BBC, FT and Byline Times coverage is enough to pass NCORP – the Byline Times article in particular, published three years after Auspex's founding, is strong evidence of some enduring notability. – Teratix ₵ 15:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cambridge Analytica#Aftermath seem sensible as WP:ATD. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The Keep !voters don't appear to grasp the criteria for establishing notability - being mentioned in "reliable sources" of being discussed at length in "reliable sources" is not the full extent of the tests. It is the content of those articles that matter. The only source that meets our critieria is this Byline Times article, the BBC article acknowledges relying entirely on their website and a Press Release, the Forbes piece relies entirely on information provided by someone connected with the company, both fails ORGIND. There does not appear to be sufficient sources to meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might have overlooked the FT source, which should satisfy your concerns. – Teratix ₵ 12:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't think the FT article passes WP:ORGDEPTH, but more importantly, it's so closely linked with the CA scandal I don't see how it would make sense for coverage to be put on a standalone article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:03, 19 April 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 List of solar eclipses in the 19th century. ✗plicit 05:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of February 11, 1804

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

Eclipse is not historic and has no references but a NASA database page. There are also no references or sources to be found for this article and it has attracted zero media attention. Though the idea of a zero-second eclipse is nice and all, there's really no evidence for this article's notability and by WP:NOTDATABASE it should probably just be redirected to List of solar eclipses in the 19th century. I also think it would be good to look through other historic eclipse articles that may not be notable and consider redirecting those as well, but that's a topic for another discussion. Thank you! Poxy4 (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Astronomy, Africa, Europe, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 19th century. This is an entirely calculated eclipse with no record of observations— not terribly surprising given the era and track. Mangoe (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 19th century, since the article fails the notability criteria for events. Most of the sources about this eclipse are primary and do not consitute notability. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm somewhat neutral on this one. Based on the path of totality it was certainly observed in eastern European cities and other locations, even though there were no published journal articles on expeditions. There are a couple of boilerplate web sites on the event, but it isn't showing up in any books. I'd say it is of questionable notability, so no objection to turning it into a redirect or just keeping it. Praemonitus (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 19th century as per InTheAstronomy32. Samoht27 (talk) 20:12, 25 April 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!} 21:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thur Deephrey

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

Unreferenced article since 2009, no evidence of notability in the text beyond the fact that he has play some shows, which does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. Searching for coverage brings up nothing on this artist beyond start concert and festival listings. InDimensional (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Germany, and Ukraine. InDimensional (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I have done a quick Google search and all that comes up are just events, press releases of which none covers the subject in depth. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only search result that isn't routine cataloguing seems to be a passing mention in a review of a different artist that they did a backing track for. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:00, 13 April 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!} 21:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ARVØ

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

The only notable thing in the article seems to be a 3rd prize in a dubious "Song of the Year" award in Estonia. There is a citation but it links to a recording of a radio show which is in Estonian. Searching for information about this award or any coverage of the subject brings up absolutely nothing apart from the artist's socials. Additionally the article was written by the subject or his staff as WP:PROMO InDimensional (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Germany. InDimensional (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV. It is also poorly sourced and its tone does not necessarily express as written from neutral point of view. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 21:38, 12 April 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!} 21:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Häzel

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

No evidence of notability in the article. The closest claim to notability is a Grammy nomination which was for another artists album that he had a hand in writing one song on. Searching for coverage brings up an interview with him on the PreSonus blog, which is just the subject talking about himself and not significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. InDimensional (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, France, and Brazil. InDimensional (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A quick search does not bring anything to the table to present as WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Please ping me if sources are found. I might change my vote --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Eidel

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

No evidence of notability in the article or through searching for sources. The only citation in the article is about his death, which isn't notable. He was nominated for a grammy but didn't win. InDimensional (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and France. InDimensional (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
being nominated for a grammy is literally criterion 8 of WP:MUSICBIO. the article isnt very good though and needs more sources Computerz4 (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, edited my nomination to remove "does not pass WP:MUSICBIO" InDimensional (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Being nominated for a Grammy is automatic notability.--2601:345:0:52A0:E165:4C72:14FB:3B9A (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Subject hardly meets WP:GNG as none of the sources dig deep. Of course, not any Grammy nom deserves a standalone article. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is way too thin to establish minimum notability. Insufficient notability signals.WmLawson (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current state of the article is not the standard for notability, and Eidel's French-language page gives sufficient signifiers to indicate notability, including independent coverage in French media. Chubbles (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the references in the French article at fr:Philippe Eidel. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources used in the Fr wiki article are profiles and mostly directory listings. I've found this [6] and [7], although the second source is weak. He spoke to a group of music students here [8]. His name comes up over and over with an Algerian musician Khaled, I don't think is the same person as DJ Khaled... Regardless. Sources are likely in paper format, given the time he was active. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources found on fr wiki combined with "Estrepublicain" gives some hope. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 10:59, 25 April 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. No P&G-based arguments brought up by the Keep participants. Owen× ☎ 14:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in South America

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason below:

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the sources are announcements or are primary and does not assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and South America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE covers this explicitly BrigadierG (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Middle East and Latin America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At least keep the South America article, which is more updated. These articles help out of country viewers information about sports rights in their countries, and as such they serve a reference function worthy of encyclopedic value. The majority are good articles with good independent references and should not be considered for deletion. These lists are not TV guides--Claudio Fernag (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VALUABLE applies. Useful to you but it doesn't mean it should belong on Wikipedia. Is it sourced though? Does it have a reliable third party source that is not news announcements? SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, hoping for a little more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This does not meet the WP:LISTN criteria. Let'srun (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These lists are not TV guides. Claudio Fernag (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not as in what time your favourite league is on your TV channel. More like a list of what channel you can watch your favourite leagues. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This isn't encyclopedic content, and it doesn't meet WP:NLIST in any way, shape or form. Note: the only person so far advocating keeping is the creator of the South American article. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:There are other similar articles on lists of sports rights (football, Olympics, basketball, etc.) that are a contribution and not TV guides.--Edu1388 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL applies to this argument. The difference between this and others you mentioned (or some) is that they are in a better quality and this isn't. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons outlined by Claudio Fernag --Pablo inos (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please come up with a better argument than that. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:33, 25 April 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn and no support for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Travels of a Republican Radical in Search of Hot Water

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

PROD was contested in 2011, but there have been no meaningful changes to the article since then besides the addition of a book cover image. WP:BEFORE provides no direct information on the book besides a few advertisements and passing mentions, and some extremely brief quotations or citations in works that describe the whole of H. G. Wells' career. The quotation it is "best known for" appears once in the literature relevant to it that I could find (which I do not have access to): [9] Recon rabbit 20:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Recon rabbit 20:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some fairly decent length reviews (coverage?) in The Daily Telegraph, The Hopewell News and NYT. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep, or Redirect to H. G. Wells bibliography, where it is mentioned. I find many google scholar hits that are likely related to the quotation mentioned in the nom's statement, but I don't think any of these are likely to show notability; I expect they're all just direct quotes or passing mentions. I do think this is plausibly notable, but what I'm finding (aside from the contemporary reviews noted above) are discussions of the contents of the book in service of biographies of Wells, rather than literary criticism (or whatever) in its own right. This article/redirect would probably be a good place to expand on some details of Wells's life that would be too much detail for his main article. Since, as the nom notes, no one has done that in more than a decade, I think a redirect is fine for now. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-26421-5_24 has a couple of pages loosely related to the book starting around pg 382; this seems typical of the scholarly/biographical use of this book. I don't think it would be a good idea to write an article solely on the strength of the reviews found by ARandomName123. -- asilvering (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As noted by asilvering, most of what I could find in regards to this work were quotes from it or references to it in service of demonstrating something about Wells' points of view. Another essay that quotes the book fairly often, though never making a direct discussion of the book, rather using it as example to talk about Wells: [10] does this confer the kind of coverage that could be used at all to discuss the book itself? It doesn't look like it to me. Also, Google brings up a one-sentence review in an unrelated article from 1940 in the Indian Express: [11] Recon rabbit 02:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following the elucidation of sources from TWL and Newspapers.com I would like to withdraw this nomination. Currently I do not have the time-requirement to access the Library but will work on integrating these sources into the article once I gain access in a couple weeks. In the future I will refrain from making any further deletion proposals or nominations until after I have searched for and reviewed sources from TWL as this was a blind spot I didn't fully realize until now, especially in the non-natural sciences articles. Recon rabbit 13:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reconrabbit: I was planning to add them in once this AfD is concluded, so I can do it later today. If you want, I can email you images of TWL sources. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@ARandomName123: If you think it would be beneficial to email me images of your sources, I would appreciate it. Though, if there're still issues with the article in a month, I'll be able to check myself and make any of the requisite improvements from the library, so it may not be worth your effort. Recon rabbit 14:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK via the sources from ARandomName123 and these additional newspaper sources: [12], [13], [14]. Jfire (talk) 04:50, 12 April 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 JSDelivr. ✗plicit 13:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BootstrapCDN

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

Non-notable content delivery network. All references in article are primary sources published by the company and I couldn't find any sources to satisfy WP:GNG elsewhere. Might be worth a brief mention at Jsdelivr at the very most. ~Liance^talk 20:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, and Internet. ~Liance^talk 20:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge with Jsdelivr, as that appears to be more notable and is now BootstrapCDN's successor, per the article. However, Jsdeliver's article is mostly covered by primary sources and a Google search mostly brings primary sources and trivial mentions, so its notability might be uncertain as well. Xeroctic (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think you meant to suggest JSDelivr as a Redirect target as the page you refer to is, itself, a redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jsdelivr - It's definitely not a keep. Per nom., no secondary sources. My hesitation was whether it should be delete or redirect. The problem with redirect, as per Xeroctic, is that the redirect target may itself not be notable. However, on balance that ATD is okay. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:44, 18 April 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Steinberg

AfDs for this article:

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

Was trying to fix an orphan article, but I came to the conclusion that she just doesn't pass our criteria for notability. There are some sources, including Brightside.com (fails WP:RS) and The Fashion Model Directory (user input, like IMDB, so fails WP:RS for V/N) and she won an award from Models.com (not notable company, not notable award, was "people's choice", a popularity vote, not a vote of industry people). Looked around the web and I see lots of social media. Even in the unreliable sources, she barely gets a mention, and utterly no significant coverage. Yes, she is a model, yes, she has had some good gigs (but can't verify them) but no independent or reliable sig/cov at all. At the end of the day, she fails to clear the low bar of WP:GNG, the gold standard for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, Israel, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last AfD covered this and was just a month ago? Right? FortunateSons (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that until after I created this AFD, and I spot checked a couple of the sources only that were given, and unimpressed by the sig/cov and WP:RS, so I decided to let it play out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Did you check the Russian articles as well? FortunateSons (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Has just been kept after a comprehensive debate. If we would delete it now, this would be a classroom example of FORUMSHOPPING. gidonb (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. I can't find anything more than database like IMDb, Getty images, Shutterstock photos, Famous Birthday, and more. Problem of context ad SIGCOV. Looking the the article again, there may be chance of being notable in the future but in the status quo, No!!!. Trying WP:THREE, I can't find any too! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To mitigate my forumshop concern, I'm inviting EVERYONE to this debate who has expressed an opinion in the previous AfD that was just closed as keep. Please, all, express your opinion once more! Ping: CurryTime7-24, Oaktree b, Tehonk, Ostalgia, FortunateSons, Marokwitz, Jeraxmoira, I'm tla. gidonb (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still a delete, I didn't see coverage a month ago, nothing's changed. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I voted delete in first nom, still think the same, the sources do not really satisfy SIGCOV. Tehonk (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: Per WP:6MONTHS. Personally, I am leaning towards delete unless someone does a source analysis of the articles mentioned in the previous AfD to show WP:THREE or other relevant SNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my procedural keep vote. Though other editors may not feel the same and there should never be an excuse because we have the WP:6MONTHS rule for a reason, I believe this nom was done in good faith without the knowledge of the previous AfD, so my vote should be taken as Draftify until a clear source analysis is presented. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really did miss the fact that an AFD had just taken place, so it wasn't trying to pound the article, but once it was done, I felt I should let it snow, or let more people look at it. Really, I just don't see how this passes GNG with anything remotely related to significant coverage. Maybe it is too soon, maybe it will get there eventually, but it isn't there now and there is no reason to think there is enough sigcov out there. Plenty of mentions? Sure, but that isn't the criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there any more support for Draftifying? It just seems odd to close the 1st AFD as Keep one month and then Delete in the 2nd AFD one more later after editors found new sourcing during the last AFD that might not have been added to the article yet. But this AFD can be closed if another closer sees a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a draft, if others find sources that I didn't consider or see them differently than I do, that's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy: My first deletion vote attributed that the subject may be notable in the future. After much thought and the relist comment by Liz, I thought of giving a chance too. Dratification should work well here.
Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT; sources are in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:18, 23 April 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!} 23:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Serbia

AfDs for this article:

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Europe. BrigadierG (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide, fails to meet the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 17:25, 15 April 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!} 23:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Albania

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Albania. BrigadierG (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable trainwreck of a list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant coverage to meet WP:NLIST and possibly is NOTTVGUIDE or WP:NOTDIR per nom. Might even be issues with WP:V too. Maybe an article about sports broadcasting in Albania would be notable but a live list of the current broadcasters is not an encyclopaedic topic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 13 April 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!} 23:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Belgium

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Belgium. BrigadierG (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. Doesn't meet the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 04:04, 15 April 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Bosnia and Herzegovina

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. BrigadierG (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Fails WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 03:58, 15 April 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!} 20:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Bulgaria

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Bulgaria. BrigadierG (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant coverage to meet WP:NLIST and possibly is NOTTVGUIDE or WP:NOTDIR per nom. Might even be issues with WP:V too. Maybe an article about sports broadcasting in Bulgaria would be notable but a live list of the current broadcasters is not an encyclopaedic topic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 12 April 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!} 20:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Denmark

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Denmark. BrigadierG (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is just a directory. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 11 April 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ağa hamamı

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, as I pointed out at the talk page a while ago. The only source used here is the hammam's own commercial website, which is not a reliable source. It also makes the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that the hammam was built in 1454, the same year of the Ottoman conquest of the city, which would make it one of the oldest Ottoman buildings in the city, if not the oldest. This has no support in actual reliable sources, which make no mention of this (e.g. see references at Tahtakale Hamam, which discuss the oldest hammams and other known Ottoman structures from this era). Judging by the choice of source and by the page creator, I'm also starting to suspect this was a WP:COI. R Prazeres (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. R Prazeres (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: if anyone is looking up Ağa hamamı in sources, keep in mind that there is at least one other "Ağa hamamı" (or "Aga Hamam" etc) in the Samatya neighbourhood of Istanbul and there may be other hammams with the same name elsewhere. R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The Kapıağası Yakup Ağa Hamamı, often just known as Ağa Hamamı. And that one is far more notable and appears in guidebooks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: I think the comment below was to check explicitly if you support keeping or deleting? Or no opinion? R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I didn't express an opinion one way or the other. I merely commented. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What outcome would you like to see happen?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered by timeout, stating "built in 1454 by Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror and was used privately by the Sultan and his male heirs." Clearly is a significant term of use. This in turn points that the place has some strong historical context. You would have thought with that, this should have plenty of WP:OFFLINE sources. Lonelyplanet snippet, cityseeker snippet. arnoldreview? Covered by [15]. Obviously it needs better sourcing, but due to the little coverage there is, which shows it's historical age and aspect shows there should be plenty more sources out there that should be able to use. Unless it's all bullshit history trying to get people through the door. Well, that's possible, but that really requires a different kind of investigation. For now, I am on the little of what google provides. Govvy (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV requires that a topic "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This isn't the case here. Of course a business can be found in blogs and review sites, like those you've linked; my local pizza restaurant would fit that criteria too, but that doesn't make it WP:NOTABLE. The last link you provided ([16]) is also not the same place, it's the Samatya hammam mentioned above.

As mentioned, the historical claim has no support in RS. Even the normally quite thorough Turkish Islam Ansiklopedisi has nothing about it. Whether the claim is deliberate bullshit I won't say, but it certainly doesn't satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY. R Prazeres (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the claim made in the article is false. Turkish Airlines has covered some hamams of Istanbul, and notes that the building itself was indeed built in 1454 as a hunting house. However, it only became a hamam after 1923. So that would perhaps make it the oldest building that has a hamam in it, but not the oldest operational hamam in the city. Basically some smart wording/PR trick coming from the website of the business that runs it to label this as the oldest, which we have taken over directly without elaboration because.... the creator of this article is likely the owner himself. Sources published post-2014 (i.e. since the creation of this article) paraphrase about the same 3 sentences found in the Turkish Airlines blog, so I won't bother to list them here.

So I looked for sources before that date, and the only thing that came up was a book from 2010 on Istanbul hamams by the municipality (which I would consider to be much more reliable than any source mentioned above). There are 2 hamams in the book named "Ağa Hamamı", ours is located on page 41, easily identifiable as the book mentions the street its located on. This book gives a completely different history: it was built in 1562—already a hamam—and the income was used to fund the Fenerbahçe Lighthouse. Both the inside and outside have been renovated several times and there is nothing "historic" about the building anymore. The book also says that the building is described in the Istanbul Encyclopedia of Reşad Ekrem Koçu. I'd say that the building is notable, but not the business itself. Since our article currently only serves the latter with incorrect information, I don't think this can stay without a TNT. So yeah, delete unless anyone wants to clean this up. Styyx (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all this great research (that 2010 book is a nice find). I just want to add: even a claim about the building itself being a hunting lodge built in 1454 is undoubtedly wrong, and a Turkish Airlines blog wouldn't count as reliable source for that either. R Prazeres (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the Istanbul Encyclopedia on archive.org. Volume 1, pages 241–243 are about this hamam, if anyone wants to use it. It indeed notes that it's a 16th-century building, so I think this confirms that the story in the article is fully made up. Styyx (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NGEO. Single source in article is to the subject's own website. BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if WP:SIRS is found, Styyx's TNT idea may be the best solution, if sources are ever found it can be created without the baggage. // Timothy :: talk 23:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear case of WP:PROMOTION by single purpose editor who only has created this article. - DonCalo (talk) 13:03, 26 April 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!} 20:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Kosovo

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Kosovo. BrigadierG (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is just a directory. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 11 April 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!} 21:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mirosław Modzelewski

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

An article about a football player that doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia and WP:SPORTSBASIC. No news hit on Google news except sports database—lacks SIGCOV! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a robust enough professional career to supersede lack of WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I couldn't find any significant coverage of him on Polish news websites. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Substub, fails GNG. Just kicking a ball does not make one notable. Need to be noticed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Wikipedia is not a database. If there was a list of all Legia players that would be better, as there is no coverage of him as a person to justify a page. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:14, 18 April 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 23:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scroggins Draw, Texas

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

This article seems to fail WP:NPLACE given almost no information beyond statistics and coordinates is mentioned. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per this source,
Scoggins Draw, you should know, is not the name of a town. It’s the name of a valley. And there is no town in the valley of Scroggins Draw. There is no … anything in Scroggins Draw.
That's the most comprehensive bit of information I could find. Per topographic maps, it's a dry wash in the desert, not a populated place and certainly not a "community" as the county template says. Therefore, the article is a falsehood. Yes, it's the point where two interstates meet. But that's not a community or populated place, and unless there's something particularly special about this desert interchange, the article needs to be deleted as a failure of WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's the name of a valley, not a settled place, and the article has never claimed to be about a settled place, so WP:GEOLAND/WP:NPLACE doesn't have anything to do with this article. WierdNAnnoyed's article mentioned above also helps establish its notability as a WP:GEONATURAL location. Its primary usage appears to be to be as the location of the western terminus of Interstate 20 in my searches, and appears as such in the first sentence of the Interstate 20 article, among other things. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article ~~includes~~ included the Template:Reeves County, Texas template, which called the place a community, which is obviously wrong, which may have led to the confusion above. I've removed that entry from that template and removed that template from the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean having exactly one notable thing about it does not really satisfy WP:GEONATURAL either, let alone WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it's a valley and not a town, we need more than just a name to justify an article. I don't see any sources of substance, even with the lower bar of GeoNatural. Reywas92^Talk 02:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GEONATURAL which states a named natural feature could be notable "provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist" and "The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article" This article is virtually just stating coordinates and nothing else. AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the I20 article The argument that this shouldn't be kept is a slam dunk, but it seems more sensible to redirect itJames.folsom (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James.folsom, can you provide a link to the "I20 article"? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still would like to see a link to this "I20 article" mentioned in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have the link to Interstate 20 in my "keep" statement above. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads to see if anybody there has highway sources that can be used to satisfy the lack of sourcing mentioned above. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, RecycledPixels, I don't know how I missed that! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article definitely needs more information. When I do a Google search on Scroggins Draw, there are numerous returns for a Scroggins Draw in Colorado. — Maile (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one is in texas not colorado. James.folsom (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The articles for I10 and I20 already note that their intersection is known as Scroggin's Draw, which is all of the information that can be gleaned from this article - so there's nothing to merge or redirect to. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not redirect per above as neither I10 nor I20 should be considered a primary target. Instead footnotes can be added to their appearance in the I10 and I20 articles using the fwtx.com article as a ref. (I would suggest DAB instead if the Colorado version in Dinosaur National Monument were at all reliably sourceable as having been an official name -- but it isn't[17]) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:14, 25 April 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!} 21:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plant-based Culture Media

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

Previously prodded, deprodded, and then redirected, but there is no good redirect target. Could be merged into culture media or enrichment culture but unclear if topic is notable and deletion may be best. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a term that is only used in a handful of papers coming out of Nabil Hegazi's lab (and I'm not sure he's notable either). The article describes it as "sole use of plant material as a microbial culture media"; the sources discuss preparing culture media by mixing liquified or dried plant material with agar. While the red algae sources of agar could be considered plants, the cited sources don't seem to be doing so. The topic appears to be a non-notable form of an enrichment culture. Plantdrew (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single work-group approach without sufficient coverage. Incidentally, yes, artfully sidestepping the nature of agar seems a bit of a stretch. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:13, 13 April 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Connections

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

Promotional, unreferenced article on organisation that doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. For the record this is not the same company as Global Connection which was previously deleted and salted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert for organisation that appears to fail WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced, promotional with no GNG met. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No P&G-based deletion argument brought up. The page does not qualify for speedy deletion under G11, and WP:TNT is not a deletion guideline, but an essay about editorial preferences. If the subject is notable but the tone is promotional, the page can be edited, perhaps from scratch. BLP violations, if any, can be removed, by selective REVDEL, if needed. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Jansson (photographer)

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

Reason: "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content" that has no foot notes and resume like contents. WP:TNT. There's been no substantial edits besides the name drops I've removed and content additions by model management company associated WP:SPA. Graywalls (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Also qualifies for deletion per reason Deletion policy reason #1 "Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion" "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion" While WP:ATD should be considered, the burden to clean up after promotional article created by public relations effort to promote shouldn't fall on volunteer editors. Graywalls (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and Sweden. Graywalls (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is unquestionably notable (The Wall Street Journal did a piece on him) but this article needs to be stripped of all POV language--which is a lot.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't why it was nom'd. Also, #9. All the flatter without footnotes don't comply with BLP. So, starting all over is a good option here. Graywalls (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see some salvageable encyclopedic content.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the article basically needs to wiped down to a stub from the current state. AlexandraAVX (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and start from scratch. Cortador (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TNT it, unless someone pulls a WP:HEY on it first. the burden to clean up after promotional article created by public relations effort to promote shouldn't fall on volunteer editors is right. -- asilvering (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd support either TNT or !draft, but I can only find the Wall Street Journal article, we'd need a few more sources about him to pass notability. This is very PROMO and badly needs a re-write. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it appears to meet G11, I think deletion reason is satisfied. Notability failure is not the only reason for deletion. I thought of draftifying, but last time I did that, it got undraftified by Liz. Graywalls (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: Not promotional enough for G11, but meets notability due to WSJ article, other articles in Vogue and fashion/photography magazines. Cleo Cooper (talk) 18:18, 26 April 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. Closing as keep per consensus. Page move can discussed, if required, in article talk page, outside AfD. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Dubey (singer)

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

WP:REFBOMBed with sources of unclear reliability and significance. Almost identical to content previously deleted and salted at Nitin Dubey * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Chhattisgarh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because many good reliable sources exists, such as 1, 2, 3. 4 and 5. BTW, there were several dead links, which I replaced with archive.org version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandSimon (talk • contribs) 09:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, previous page was deleted in 2012, so it cant be identical after 12 years. There is so much more news since then. He has played over 2500 shows in India. He is most popular representative of Chhattisgarhi folk singing style from chhattisgarh india, so meets Criteria #7 from WP:MUSICBIO. Also meets criteria #5, has released albums on 3 prominent Indian labels Ultra media & entertainment, Shemaroo Entertainment, and Saregama. RolandSimon (talk) 20:27, 14 April 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) 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I read the English language sources and they satisfy GNG. I've no reason to believe the non-English wouldn't check out making this person highly notable. The proper name page needs unsalting, the original salt took place 12 years ago and the world moves on. Desertarun (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and Move to Nitin Dubey (due to unnecessary disambiguator). - Meets GNG with a bunch of secondary sources that are independent, reliable, and provide SIGCOV. In relation previous article that was deleted in 2012, all of the sources have been published since then. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. on the basis of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I'll just add that there have been about two dozen AFDs on articles in this same model for different countries and except for this one and Sports broadcasting contracts in Estonia, I have seen no support for Keeping these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Croatia

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Croatia. BrigadierG (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep honestly don't think WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here, since this isn't a list of when programmes will be on television but rather information on rights holders for important events - this isn't the best article, needs better referencing, but I think it could either be better solved through editing (adding more sources) or a better deletion nomination (that those sources don't exist). SportingFlyer T·C 04:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSTBESOURCES. From what I see, coverage of TV rights doesn't really go much deeper for most countries than just announcements that a certain channel now has broadcasting rights. There are some exceptions, for example where sports broadcasting rights are discussed as a subject for critical analysis, but in the majority of cases this information is just a WP:INDISCRIMINATE pile-up of commercial facts - see WP:ROUTINE. BrigadierG (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't my argument, but thank you. SportingFlyer T·C 19:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UGLY - "asserting that an article merely needs improvement to withstand a deletion nomination is not a persuasive argument to retain it. Perhaps improvement in the form of adding multiple references to reliable, independent, non-trivial discussion of the subject would indeed demonstrate its notability, but asserting that an article "needs improvement, not deletion" is not the same as providing evidence of such a possibility." BrigadierG (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of which is related to you incorrectly applying NOTTVGUIDE. SportingFlyer T·C 23:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. As with referencing, what is there? News announcments? Is that all? This is what lists about sport broadcasters are plaqued with. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What does it matter even if they were "only" announcements? As long as the information is verifiable/trustworthy that's really all that matters. Shadess (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No, it don't. Merely announcments does not make a subject notable on their own, neither does a mostly unsourced list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't see any reason for deleting these articles. There is encyclopedic value to them. Keep the page around, tag it for improving refs and move along. Shadess (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are they encyclopedic? This website is already plaqued with low quality lists such as this. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BELONG BrigadierG (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is just a directory. Mccapra (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently against WP:NOTDIR * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a directory, fails the criteria set by WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 19:47, 13 April 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.

Leopoldo Soto Norambuena

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

Article is based entirely on work by the subject and has no evidence of third-party notability. Almost identical to article previously speedy deleted and salted as Leopoldo Soto * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:30, 11 April 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 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I am inclined to think they may be notable, but just across the line. --Bedivere (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improve (an unusual vote). Based upon just his publication record he does not qualify (he publishes as Leopoldo Soto), and I could not verify his appointments listed in http://pppp.cl/contenido/investigador.php?varbajada=1. However, with a bit more digging I found https://www.cchen.cl/?p=7217&highlight=Leopol which has more notable information, but I am using Google to translate from Spanish. I think some more digging (and possibly improvement) is needed first by a native Spanish speaker. (Android visual editor messing up?) Ldm1954 (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:53, 26 April 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I agree with the nom's arguments. There is a lack of independent sources that would meet WP:ANYBIO. If we're going with GNG, I'd vote delete. However, I'm a bit more hesistant in regards to this article on a WP:NPROF basis. The most recent deleted revision of the salted page mentions that they are a Fellow for the Institute of Physics. This is literally wikilinked as an example of meeting criteria #3. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muksamse'lapli

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

Seems very obscure biography. Very little references found through Google search. Seaweed (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Pre-Internet persons covered in three reliable sources are probably notable. I am extremely hesitant to delete articles about indigenous folks. Bearian (talk) 14:31, 15 April 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) 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I’m fine with deleting promotional articles about Indigenous people, but this article is well-cited and is notable. Yuchitown (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I dug around and found enough online to satisfy myself this passes GNG. Desertarun (talk) 19:30, 25 April 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 03:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Estonia

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Estonia. BrigadierG (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Don't see any reason for deleting these articles. There is encyclopedic value to them. Also WP:NOTTVGUIDE doesn't even cover these pages, at all. "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events" these articles aren't articles on broadcasters, they are articles on the rights/contracts. The rule, to me at least, seems to be there to avoid actual tv guides as in "on this channel, this show is on monday at 8, this at 9..." etc. which is entirely different. Keep the pages around, if some of the country pages lack references then tag the pages for that and move along. For this page literally every entry has a reference so I see absolutely no reason for even trying to delete this. Shadess (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> There is encyclopedic value to them

WP:BELONG

> every entry has a reference

WP:LOTSOFSOURCES

The bar here is showing that there is reliable, in-depth coverage from multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. There is not a single secondary source on this article, every single one is based on a press release and involves no secondary coverage or discussion. Further more, there are no sources that satisfy WP:NLIST - every source trivially covers some specific contract, and none of them discuss the sector of broadcasting rights in Estonia as a whole. BrigadierG (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The bar here is for you to also show why these should be deleted and not just tagged for improving/adding references. I'll say it again, WP:NOTTVGUIDE that you cite as a reason doesn't even cover these pages. Could you address that?Shadess (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  > The bar here is for you to also show why these should be deleted and not just tagged for improving/adding references
  
  No it isn't - WP:ONUS. Articles are only kept if they meet either WP:GNG or one of the subject-specific notability standards underneath it, such as WP:NLIST. I can't see there's even a single source that satisfies the notability requirements set up under WP:GNG, so that's my reason for deleting it. And for the avoidance of doubt, the criteria for those sources are the last 4 bullet points of WP:SIGCOV. The issue you're gonna run into is WP:SECONDARY and WP:NLIST requiring discussion of the group as a whole, and not just individual members. BrigadierG (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is just a directory. Mccapra (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails in WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Svartner (talk) 08:23, 20 April 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House of Hiranandani, Chennai

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

Previously deleted and salted at House of Hiranandani. This is not quite substantially identical to the deleted version, but I see no new in-depth sources to establish notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -it is just on the cusp of significant coverage. I'm not sure which way and would like others' input. Bearian (talk) 14:33, 15 April 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) 18:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:06, 25 April 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 List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alibina Belalova

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

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Uzbekistan. JTtheOG (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 09:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - can't find anything decent at all Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 14 April 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 List of Panama women's international footballers. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayra de la Rosa

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

Redirect to List of Panama women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Panama. JTtheOG (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 09:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert Hamel

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references that I found in the corresponding German article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:30, 11 April 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) 18:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like more or less a straight translation from German WP. I'm willing to defer to their judgment. Carrite (talk) 10:22, 25 April 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 List of television stations in Tennessee#LPTV stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WDHC-LD

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

Fails WP:GNG; some sources are questionable. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only seeing press releases and TV guides as coverage, which isn't secondary. BrigadierG (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of television stations in Tennessee#LPTV stations: At least in theory there is probably more potential for significant coverage here than the numerous all-national too-new LPTVs (this one does seem to have always had some local content), but in 2024 notability on Wikipedia is determined by, at minimum, the known existence of GNG-level sourcing, not merely the possibility of them. There might not be enough to justify anything more than an {{R to list entry}} as an alternative to deletion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W33EL-D

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Puerto Rico. Let'srun (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 12:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optoma Corporation

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

Sources are largely thinly-disguised press releases with no real evidence of notability per WP:NORG. Previously deleted and salted as Optoma * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Taiwan, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep after rewrite Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 04:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Huang, Hanhua 黃漢華 (2011-05-30). "奧圖碼 8年攻下世界8％" [Optoma conquered 8% of the world in 8 years]. Global Views Monthly [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Optoma is a company established in 2002 by Zhongqiang Optoelectronics, which is engaged in projector OEM. Among Japanese brands, which account for almost 90% of the global projector market, they have captured 8% of the world's market share in the past eight years, second only to the century-old Japanese brand EPSON. This Taiwanese projector brand that did not exist eight years ago is already the second largest in the world."
2. Zhang, Yigong 張義宮 (2007-01-13). "奧圖碼高階投影機競豔" [Optoma high-end projectors compete]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. B4.
  The article notes: "中光電（5371）旗下奧圖碼以「Optoma」自有品牌在CES推出高階投影機，今年以自牌投影機在全球銷售量可達60萬台，坐穩全球第四大、美國市場第二大，將以720p與1080p普及、高階機種來打開全球市場。"
  From Google Translate: "Optoma, a subsidiary of China Optoelectronics (5371), launched high-end projectors at CES under its own brand "Optoma". This year, global sales of its own-brand projectors reached 600,000 units, ranking fourth in the world and second in the U.S. market. It will compete in the global market with popular and high-end models of 720p and 1080p."
3. Zhang, Yigong 張義宮 (2007-10-16). "奧圖碼搶攻DLP投影機市場" [Optoma seizes DLP projector market]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. C7.
  The article notes: "全球最大DLP投影機品牌的奧圖碼科技（3565），與德儀（TI）挺進中小企業DLP投影機市場，昨（15）日發表五款普及型至高階的商用機種，擴大在台灣商用市場占有率至20%以上；奧圖碼（Optoma）自有品牌的DLP投影機市占今年蟬聯全球及台灣第一，"
  From Google Translate: "Optoma Technology (3565), the world's largest DLP projector brand, and TI have entered the DLP projector market for small and medium-sized enterprises. Yesterday (15th), they released five popular to high-end commercial models, expanding their commercial use in Taiwan The market share has reached more than 20%; Optoma's own-brand DLP projector has ranked first in the world and in Taiwan this year."
4. Zhang, Yigong 張義宮 (2007-07-12). "登錄興櫃首日漲86% 奧圖碼品牌投影機坐穩全球二哥" [Login to open counter. Rose 86% on the first day. Optoma projector brand firmly occupies the second position in the world]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. C3.
  The article notes: "全球第二大投影機品牌的奧圖碼科技（3565）昨（11）日首日登錄興櫃的均價以98.16元收盤，開出好彩頭。今年奧圖碼以「Optoma」自有品牌目標在全球市場賣出50萬台，坐穩全球第二大，在DLP投影機的機種則位居全球第一；其母公司中光電（5371）則是全球DLP投影機最大的OEM╱ODM代工廠，今年出貨量將成長逾二成、達80萬台新高。"
  From Google Translate: "Optoma Technology (3565), the world's second largest projector brand, closed at an average price of 98.16 yuan on its first day of trading yesterday (11th), a good start. This year, Optoma aims to sell 500,000 units of its own brand "Optoma" in the global market, ranking second in the world. It ranks first in the world in DLP projector models; its parent company China Optoelectronics (5371) It is the largest OEM/ODM factory of DLP projectors in the world, and its shipments this year will increase by more than 20%, reaching a new high of 800,000 units."
5. Luo, Xiuwen 羅秀文 (2007-07-11). "奧圖碼風光上興櫃" [Optoma Scenery and cabinet]. United Evening News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 19.
  The article notes: "奧圖碼科技實收資本額6.09億元，董事長為李有田，主要產品為投影機及影像處理器。主要法人大股東為中強光電，持股比率52.74%。 ... 奧圖碼去年投影機出貨量為35萬2166台，較前年的逾17萬台成長102.4%。"
  From Google Translate: "Optoma Technology has a paid-in capital of 609 million yuan. Its chairman is Li Youtian. Its main products are projectors and image processors. The main legal person shareholder is Zhongqiang Optoelectronics, with a shareholding ratio of 52.74%. ... Optoma's projector shipments last year were 352,166 units, an increase of 102.4% from more than 170,000 units the previous year."
6. Xiao, Junhui 蕭君暉 (2015-09-03). "投影機Q2出貨奧圖碼第四名" [Projector shipments in Q2, Optoma ranks fourth]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. C4.
  The article notes: "IDC昨（2）日公布第2季台灣前五大投影機廠商出貨量排名，依序為愛普生、NEC、佳世達（2352）旗下明基、中光電旗下奧圖碼，以及台達電旗下的麗訊。"
  From Google Translate: "IDC announced yesterday (2) the ranking of the top five projector manufacturers in Taiwan in terms of shipments in the second quarter. In order, they are Epson, NEC, BenQ of Qisda (2352), Optoma of China Optoelectronics, and Delta Electronics."
7. Qi, Anguo 祁安國 (2005-09-03). "變身大廚跆拳道高手大力士…… Optoma郭特利百變總經理" [Transform into a chef, a Taekwondo master, a strongman... Optoma's Guo Teli, ever-changing general manager]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). p. A10.
  The article notes: "Optoma這個品牌是3C業界的「菜鳥」，由原來叫志紅科技，郭特利接掌後改中文為「奧圖碼」，不到兩年成為國內投影機第一品牌，讓投影機大廠Epson、BenQ也不得不視為「可敬的對手」。"
  From Google Translate: "The Optoma brand is a "rookie" in the 3C industry. It was originally called Zhihong Technology. After Guo Teli took over, the Chinese name was changed to "Optoma". In less than two years, it became the number one projector brand in the country, leaving major projector manufacturers behind. Epson and BenQ have to be regarded as "respectable opponents"."
8. PCMag reviews:
  1. Stone, M. David (2024-02-07). "Optoma UHZ35ST Review: A projector for your home and beyond". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "No built-in streaming apps or bundled dongle. Shows frequent rainbow artifacts. Image quality for HDR isn't as good as for SDR. Pricey for what it delivers."
  2. Stone, M. David (2022-08-22). "Optoma UHD55 Review: All colors and no lag make a brilliant 4K projector". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Only one of the two HDMI ports offers the short input lag. Limited number of streaming apps"
  3. Stone, M. David (2021-12-08). "Optoma CinemaX P2 Review: More hits than misses on this 4K ultra-short-throw projector". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Integrated streaming is better ignored in favor of an HDMI dongle (which demands a second remote). Only two of three HDMI ports support 4K with HDR. More prone to rainbow artifacts than most UST DLP projectors."
  4. Stone, M. David (2020-11-06). "Optoma GT1080HDR Review: Space-strapped? This short-throw projector pushes a bright, colorful image". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "No support for HLG, the emerging HDR standard for broadcast TV. Remote often jumps two menu spots with one button-press. No carry case."
  5. Stone, M. David (2021-07-08). "Optoma UHD35 Review: Flexible and relatively inexpensive 4K". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Black level is too high on default settings. Default settings leave some colors a little too dark or unsaturated. Optical zoom is only 1.1x."
  6. Stone, M. David (2020-09-29). "Optoma HD39HDR Review: An ambient-light ace". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "With default settings, some hues are noticeably off for both SDR and HDR content. High brightness works well in ambient light, but means disappointing blacks and three-dimensionality in dark rooms."
  7. Stone, M. David (2021-02-02). "Optoma HD28HDR Review: A bright projector for movie night on the couch". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Black level not ideal for dark rooms. Dark scenes look better in 1080p SDR than downgraded 4K HDR."
  8. Stone, M. David (2021-02-17). "Optoma HD146X Review: A capable projector for cinephiles on a budget". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Only one HDMI port; USB port is only for power out. Onboard audio is poor. Lacks image shift for setup."
  9. Stone, M. David (2022-08-22). "Optoma UHD55 Review: All colors and no lag make a brilliant 4K projector". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Only one of the two HDMI ports offers the short input lag. Limited number of streaming apps"
  10. Stone, M. David (2015-11-17). "Optoma HD28DSE Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Shows rainbow artifacts in video testing."
  11. Stone, M. David (2015-11-18). "Optoma EH320USTi Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Poor instructions. Interactive feature is more difficult to set up than with competing projectors."
  12. Stone, M. David (2014-11-10). "Optoma HD141X Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Serious image quality problems with some source material at the brightest setting. Shows rainbow artifacts."
  13. Stone, M. David (2014-01-21). "Optoma GT760 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Native resolution is lower than today's latest gaming systems offer."
  14. Stone, M. David (2015-03-30). "Optoma HD161X Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Shows rainbow artifacts, primarily in black-and-white film clips. Long lag time."
  15. Hoffman, Tony (2013-09-12). "Optoma ZW212ST Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Rainbow effect in video. Relatively weak audio."
  16. Stone, M. David (2014-11-17). "Optoma HD26 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Shows rainbow artifacts, particularly in black-and-white film clips. Has additional image-quality issues in its brightest predefined mode."
  17. Stone, M. David (2013-11-21). "Optoma X401 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Obvious rainbow artifacts in video make it suitable for short video clips only."
  18. Stone, M. David (2013-11-22). "Optoma W401 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Obvious rainbow artifacts in video make it suitable for short video clips only."
  19. Hoffman, Tony (2012-03-30). "Optoma Pico PK120 Pocket Projector Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "No remote. Primitive menu system. Weak audio. Very modest brightness."
  20. Stone, M. David (2013-11-22). "Optoma X306ST Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Rainbow effect in video more severe than is usual. No port for USB thumb drive."
  21. Stone, M. David (2015-01-20). "Optoma GT1080 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Displays rainbow artifacts. Shows posterization in its brightest mode."
  22. Hoffman, Tony (2013-11-22). "Optoma W306ST Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Sub-par video, largely due to rainbow effect. Lacks port for USB thumb drive."
  23. Stone, M. David (2015-09-14). "Optoma HD37 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Shows rainbow artifacts, primarily in black and white film clips."
  24. Stone, M. David (2015-10-15). "Optoma EH341 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Shows rainbow artifacts, primarily in black-and-white film clips."
  25. Hoffman, Tony (2013-05-31). "Optoma ZX212ST Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Low brightness by today's standards. 3D support limited to PC connection (VGA or HDMI) only."
  26. Hoffman, Tony (2013-08-09). "Optoma S303 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Sub-par video. Rainbow effect."
  27. Gideon, Tim (2015-11-05). "Optoma NuForce Primo8 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Not for bass lovers. Expensive."
  28. Stone, M. David (2011-10-05). "Optoma DP-MW9080A Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Screen material gives off strong chemical odor when new."
  29. Hoffman, Tony (2013-08-16). "Optoma W303 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Sub-par video. Rainbow effect. Very soft audio."
  30. Stone, M. David (2014-05-06). "Optoma ML1000P Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Touchpad controls are hard to use. Showed scaling artifacts (unwanted patterns added to some screens) at its native resolution in our tests."
  31. Stone, M. David (2013-08-29). "Optoma X304M Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Video is suitable for only short clips. Obvious rainbow artifacts in video."
  32. Stone, M. David (2013-08-29). "Optoma W304M Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Tendency to show rainbow artifacts makes video suitable for short clips only. Underpowered audio."
9. TechRadar reviews:
  1. Carter, Jamie (2021-11-11). "Optoma UHD38 4K projector review: Supersized images that are great for gamers". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Long-throw lens. Some light leakage in a blackout. Average black levels. Fiddly remote."
  2. Carter, Jamie (2021-07-15). "Optoma UHD30 4K projector review: Supersized 4K projection for day or night". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Requires a large room. Greenish 'bright' mode. Poor built-in speaker."
  3. May, Steve (2020-11-09). "Optoma CinemaX P2 4K projector review: Optoma drops the price, but keeps the good stuff". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Less bright than its predecessor. Doesn't support HLG HDR over HDMI. Smart app choice limited."
  4. Dawson, Stephen (2020-07-26). "Optoma UHD50X review: A powerhouse projector aimed squarely at gaming". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "60Hz judder with PAL content. Poor 50Hz de-interlacing. Unevenness in brightness."
  5. Laird, Jeremy (2020-02-24). "Optoma ZK507 review: Optoma's new 4K laser projector packs a serious punch for presentations and video". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Somewhat limited colour fidelity. Manual lens control. Expensive."
  6. Archer, John (2020-03-21). "Optoma UHD52ALV review: The Optoma UHD52ALV shows that projectors are finally getting smart". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Black levels merely average. Peak HDR color issues. Audio glitches. Gaming lag."
  7. St Leger, Henry (2018-12-13). "Optoma HD31UST projector review: Ultra short-throw projection for the home". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Blooming around flames and bright light sources. Can't cut down size of projection."
  8. Lynch, Gerald (2018-11-08). "Optoma UHD51A 4K projector with Alexa review: 'Hey Alexa, bring the cinema home'". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Alexa features add little. No digital keystone. Alexa set up issues."
  9. de Looper, Christian (2020-05-26). "Optoma CinemaX P1 review: It isn't cheap, but this short-throw 4K projector is worth the money". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Sub-par built-in OS. Limited to HD streaming."
  10. Carter, Jamie (2018-05-11). "Optoma UHZ65 4K Laser Projector review: Is a laser light engine really worth spending extra on?". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Huge price tag. No quiet speaker option. Average contrast & black levels. No auto-focus or zoom."
  11. Carter, Jamie (2017-11-21). "Optoma HD142X Projector review: Copious amounts of brightness and contrast make this a great value beamer". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Basic mono speaker. Rainbow effect. Uninspired design. Rudimentary remote control."
  12. Carter, Jamie (2018-11-15). "Optoma UHL55 review: A hands-free home cinema that excels with 4K content". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "HD sources look poor. Black levels not the best. No protective case."
  13. Laird, Jeremy (2020-03-02). "Optoma LH200 review: A robust anywhere, anyplace, anytime projection solution". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Fixed optics. Adequate image quality. Limited battery life."
  14. Carter, Jamie (2018-05-04). "Optoma HD27e Full HD Projector review: Who needs 4K when Full HD can be this much fun?". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Not exceptionally bright. Some motion blur. 1.1x zoom. Limited to HDMI."
  15. Carter, Jamie (2015-09-01). "Optoma HD36 projector review: Super-bright and with best-in-class speakers, this versatile Full HD DLP impresses". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Only one HDMI. Big size. Loud fan noise. Fiddly focus ring. Optional 3D & wireless."
  16. May, Steve (2018-02-14). "Optoma HD39Darbee Special Edition Full HD projector review: An all-round crowd-pleaser". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Black level is inevitably limited. Operating noise is high in full brightness mode."
  17. Browne, Michael (2010-04-30). "Optoma EW330 review: Can a projector designed for life on the road still offer good image quality?". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Not for use in larger rooms. Gets loud."
  18. Pino, Nick (2014-10-17). "Optoma GT1080 review: A gaming projector with a good short game, but lacking in fundamentals". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Super short range. Excessive heat and noise. Imperfect audio. Poor daytime performance."
  19. Archer, John (2018-07-03). "Optoma UHD60 projector review: It rewrote the 4K HDR projector rule book". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Flimsy top panel. Limited HDR effect. Occasional HDR colour flaw. Slightly high input lag."
10. Additional reviews:
  1. Das, Mehul Reuben (2024-01-15). "Optoma UHZ50+ Laser 4K Projector Review: A solid projector with pro gaming features, stunning visuals". Firstpost. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes: "Cons - In-built speakers are a letdown - Limited vertical shift, no horizontal shift - Zoom and shift functions aren’t motorised."
  2. Dent, Steve (2020-02-26). "Optoma CinemaX P1 review: A stunning 4K projector with terrible apps. Just get a 4K Chromecast or Amazon Fire Stick for it". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes: "Optoma is known for building affordable projectors, so the $3,700 CinemaX P1 might not seem that cheap. ... And while this projector doesn't deliver the picture quality of more costly native 4K long-throw projectors from JVC and Sony, it's brighter than many of those models.Yes, the streaming apps are terrible, but a $70 Chromecast or $40 Amazon Fire Stick solves that problem."
  3. Woodard, Nick (2021-08-26). "Optoma HD39HDR Review: A super bright projector on a budget". IGN. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The review notes: "If you’re purely a gamer that won’t use a projector for anything else, it might make sense to save a few more bucks and wait to invest in a product like the BenQ X1300i or the Optoma UHD38. But if you stream as much as you game, the HD39HDR is a no-brainer at this price. The sheer brightness, ease of setup and use, and exceptional picture quality of the HD39HDR easily outweigh issues like sound quality and unimpressive connections."
  4. Nystedt, Brendan (2018-03-23). "Review: Optoma UHD60 Projector: Got a 4K source you're itching to throw against the wall?". Wired. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The cons summary notes: "It's bigger than you expect. Rainbow effect may or may not impact your viewing experience. Not true pixel-perfect 4K resolution, but good enough. Only one HDMI port supports HDMI 2.2. Remote backlighting is blinding. No keystone correction. Can't they make one in matte black?"
  5. Hall, Parker (2020-07-22). "Review: Optoma UHD50X: The company's latest consumer projector looks better than ever and even offers a 240-Hz refresh rate for PC gamers". Wired. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The cons summary notes: "Requires a dark room, projector screen, and sound system with HDMI pass-through. No high refresh rates for consoles. No G-Sync or FreeSync support."
  6. Hunt, Kevin (2005-12-09). "Projector's Hi-Def Picture Puts Plasma to Shame". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13 – via Newspapers.com.
    The review notes: "Optoma sells a virtually identical projector, the H79, for $10,000 whose only apparent difference is hand-picked optics, deemed the best. ... The Optoma is among the quietest projectors, producing only 25 decibels in standard mode. ... Some analog cable channels look like a snowy mush with the Optoma."
  7. Patterson, Ben (2009-07-31). "25 Best Back-to-School Gadgets: Optoma PK-101 Pico projector". Time. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The article notes: "Just slip Optoma's Pico projector out of your pocket and turn that blank wall in the lounge into an instant movie screen. About the size of a cell phone, the 4-oz. (113 g) PK-101 can project an image up to 60 in. (150 cm) in diameter, at a reasonably sharp (if far short of HD) resolution of 480 pixels by 320 pixels, and it even has a tiny built-in speaker."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Optoma (traditional Chinese: 奧圖碼; simplified Chinese: 奥图码) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are an awful lot of sources included in this discussion, some of which are in off-line sources, and a lot of them are product reviews but it would help to have an editor or two weigh in about whether they can help establish WP:NORG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Coretronic: its parent company. There is no company called "Optoma Corporation" There's one called "Optoma Technology", doing business as Optoma. "Optoma Corporation" is a fiction created by a sneaky editor trying to get around a salted page. The REFBOMBed sources shown here mostly cover the company's products. I did not go over all of them to see if there are three decent SIGCOV ones in there. If there were, I'm guessing we wouldn't be flooded with over 60 low-quality refs. Owen× ☎ 21:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My position is that the projector brand Optoma is notable through significant coverage in Taiwanese publications as well as numerous product reviews. I linked to 58 product reviews to show that the brand is notable, not to "REFBOMB". There was a recent discussion about using product reviews to establish notability for the company at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Notability of products vis a vis notability of the corporation. I will mention the AfD there. Three editors separately wrote:
  1. "That said, if there are several products by a company, and those products have received sufficient significant coverage such that they are notable as a group or notable independently, I think an article about the company that is effectively a list of those items would meet WP:NLIST."
  2. "I think that your rationale argues for bundling of product articles, not for having an article on the company. That said, if there is GNG coverage of the products, and at least near-GNG coverage on the company, IMPO it would be within the norms in this area (albeit not explicitly supported by the guidelines) to have an article on the company if it is the place that the products are covered."
  3. "I would generally say that the purposes of the encyclopedia are better served by bundling notable products under their manufacturer, and treating the notability of the products as the notability of the company that makes them. This would only apply for products that are, in fact, notable, and discretely made by a single manufacturer."
  Sources published in 2007 and 2011 said the Optoma brand was the second largest projector brand by market share in the world, behind Epson. This strongly contributes to notability.
  Cunard (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep - Leaning to keep only if the Chinese language sources provided by Cunard are reliable. If the Chinese language sources are not reliable, then I am more than willing to change to a delete vote. None of the tech reviews give notability to the company as they are solely about the product not the company itself. If the article is not deleted, it should also be redirected to Optoma instead as "Optoma Corporation" does not appear to be the common name, and it is only used by their corporate websites. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- CountHacker (talk · contribs), I agree with a rename from "Optoma Corporation" to "Optoma". Global Views Monthly [zh] is a Taiwanese magazine. This article from Springer Nature's peer-reviewed journal International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility says, "Another reputable magazine within the same business group as the Common Wealth is the Global Views Monthly, which has also received multiple media awards."
  Economic Daily News [zh] is a Taiwanese business newspaper published by the United Daily News Group, while United Evening News [zh] and Min Sheng Bao are Taiwanese newspapers also published by the United Daily News Group. I consider these four publications to be reliable sources for business topics. Cunard (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing my vote to keep based on the information & sources provided per Cunard. Seems to have been enough coverage in Taiwanese media. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I rewrote the article. Cunard (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rewritten article looks much better to me from a quick glance, but I'm not familar generally with Chinese topics. And of course if kept the closing admin should move to Optoma. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while originally I would have agreed with the nominator following the extensive multi-language search and ensuing re-write by Cunard (for which a hearty thanks is in order) I would say that most likely (limited by my ability to only read the google translate versions of some of the articles rather than in their original language) we do have a notable stand alone topic here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 20 April 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 Herbert#Selected filmography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Hugh?

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

I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:NFILM / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The film has 2 reels and one can read about it: "Who's Hugh? (1943), His Hotel Sweet (1944), A Knight and a Blonde (1944) and Woo, Woo! (1945) are alarmingly similar in content; viewing them together, it's nearly impossible to detect" any difference..." (source). so may I suggest a redirect to Hugh Herbert#Selected filmography? (with at least that note). Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Found no reviews that meet WP:NFILM, and a redirect to filmography is fine as an WP:ATD. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The World in Your Home

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

I couldn't establish that this programme was notable. Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Education. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some content and some citations to the article. I hope that those will help. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on newly added sources. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:36, 18 April 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) 18:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For a lost 1940s TV show, we at least have a claim to significance, record on where it aired and some of what it contained, and a review. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per HEY. Sources have since been added and show a variety of coverage from when the show aired that establish notability. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. We cannot redirect to an article that does not exist, but if one on the magazine is created, please ping me and I can restore the history under a redirect. Star Mississippi 02:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maan Abu Taleb

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

~~Took a look at this article at the suggestion of another editor who suggested a delete nom. After reviewing it, I'm gonna agree with him.~~ The only sources I can find of this guy are, a Vice interview (not enough) and coverage of his magazine (sexual misconduct allegations, mostly) The magazine he founded, Ma3azef, may have a case for notability despite being a redlink, but this is not WP:INHERITED (and additionally, fails WP:AUTHOR 3.). Then there is the matter of his book, the english translation of the book seems to have gotten no coverage whatsoever and frankly, the fact that it was only longlisted for a rather niche prize (the Banipal, which is awarded to english translations of Arabic books), seems to only strengthen the case here. Given that this article has had this sourcing issue for at least four years, it seems to suggest that nobody else can find sources either. Hence, this likely fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR/WP:NEDITOR. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Jordan, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Numerous and diverse secondary sources emerge on a Google search. The English translation of his first novel was published by an academic press, and it appears he's active in the Arabic diaspora. I assess that the subject is notable and the page is marked as stub quality for lack of volunteer editors contributing to expand it. I've done some work and will add more soon. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Allan Nonymous, when you took a look at the article - did you look at the subject's Wikidata item, which was created back in 2019. In particular, on 13 December 2020 a contributor added the Google Knowledge Graph ID which has a wide amount of interesting information available at a click and waiting for further editing of the page by future volunteer editors (such as myself). Basing your judgment on the content of a stub page is a weak argument, and I write this as a Good Faith editor with a lot of work in Wikidata under my belt. In evaluating a page to nominate as AfD's, this would be my advice. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Deborahjay that article is made of paper, the numerous sources are only 2, I can't believe it when my Noam Bettan article had 22 sources. Furthermore, the first is an autobiography of a blog, if the article does not make it relevant, it lacks too much content for it to remain here, it seems like a mirror article, that article could very well be on another free website where it does not matter. ask for too much information like in FANDOM. Acartonadooopo (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Sock comment struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Acartonadooopo, you fail to show understanding of Wikipedia guidelines relevant to new page creators: notability, biographies of living people, reliable sources, stub article. Your 22 sources for the Noam Bettan page were from Israeli popular music platforms and websites, not mainstream media. I found them inadequate and agreed with the Deletion recommendation. This page you've proposed for deletion is a stub for notable person, an author with listings in the US Library of Congress and the National Library of Israel (and Canada, Japan and others, besides his ID included in the Virtual International Authority File. This is evinced by his Wikidata item. Considering how little experience you have in the EN WP, it's not too soon for you to learn the consensus on best practices of this collaborative effort before you criticize from your own point of view. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata shoudn't be used for notability here, it's user created, so just any old person can go create a profile there. It's really only useful to us for cross-platform linking of topics, it has its own set of standards that don't apply here either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think we have notability. I can't find book reviews and this is the only RS [18], but it's more of an interview. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe a redirect to the red-linked magazine he founded, the Ma3azef, might work. There's some coverage around that. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, that's why I mentioned it as an option given that Ma3azef is probably notable. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it has come to my attention that the user here who suggested the nom was a sock. I have struck the portion of the comment referring to him, but I think the nom is still sound here (despite the rather unsavory way this was brought to my attention).

Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 12:57, 26 April 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. given references that have been added. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covariance operator

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

Unref article, and I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs work, but there's a solid mathematical topic here that can be written about using sources. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides the sources that have been added to the article, I am seeing additional reliable sources in a Google search. So this seems to be a valid, notable topic. Rlendog (talk) 15:32, 17 April 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/withdaw‎. (non-admin closure) -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khursheed Jabeen

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

BLP fails WP:GNG. only sources are Databases. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Pakistan. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's highly likely that sourcing offline exists for an international player of this period, or in non-English language sources that are not accessible. A suitable redirect per WP:ATD in List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers exists also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the problem is that inaccessible sources are not verifiable. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 19:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've added one (non-database) source. Given the amount of international cricket she played over a long-ish career, I'm sure other sources exist as Rugbyfan points out. Mpk662 (talk) 15:38, 12 April 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 this much discussion and good faith input on both "sides", it's clear a consensus isn't going to emerge Star Mississippi 01:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Runners Association

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

Does not meet GNG/NCORP. The only source that is about WRA and in-depth is the BBC. Some of the sources make no mention of WRA and the others are brief mentions or based on what the organization/those affiliated say. S0091 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports. S0091 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the previously cited lack of evidence demonstrating notability. Furthermore, the organisation appears to be using Wikipedia for advocacy as evidenced by the fact that the article was commissioned by them (see article talk page), clarifying edits have been reversed by a user with a registered COI based only on the claim that the organisation is “legitimate and registered”, and a link to the article is displayed prominently on their website’s home page. The line “Wikipedia is not… to be an adjunct web presence for an organization” on Wikipedia:Advocacy appears to be particularly relevant here. Jaa.eem (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, and Disicipline the editors who are COI-editing or removing tags inappropriately. The relevant policy here is not only WP:NCORP but also WP:NSPORT as a sports league/organization. Looking at this as neutrally as possible, the bar for coverage is met:

Jack Palfrey. "Is this the world's most exclusive travel club?". BBC News. Retrieved 2024-04-11.
"Danish runner contesting Russ Cook's claim says he wants to get 'facts correct': Russ Cook's claim has been contested by the World Runners Association". The Independent. 2024-04-08. Retrieved 2024-04-11.
"'Hardest Geezer' Russ Cook's Africa run contested by man who did it 14 years ago: Russ Cook, from Worthing, West Sussex, finished his gruelling 352-day run from South Africa to Tunisia on Sunday. But claims he is the first to run the length of Africa have been contested by the World Runners Association". Sky News. Retrieved 2024-04-11.

The fact that the organization seems to be using Wikipedia for promotion is unfortunate, but also must not be a reason for its deletion; as with all articles we need to look at the sources neutrally. --Habst (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst the Independent and Sky News (along with others published around April 8th) are based almost entirely what those affiliated with organization say so primary and is also churnalism. S0091 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091, The Independent and Sky News aren't churnalism outlets, they're both marked as "generally reliable" by CiteHighlighter and WP:RSP. They're also not the only sources, as you pointed out, there are many others from around that time period.

With great respect, I think this is a misapplication of WP:Primary – of course, news outlets will respond to and report quotes and statements from organization officials with analysis. That is journalism and secondary sourcing, not primary sourcing. A primary source would be, for example, citing the World Runners Association Charter document (if one exists) or similar.

Thank you, --Habst (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great respect back atcha @Habst :) but reliability has nothing do with churnalism. Other than the BBC article, all they say about WRA other than they dispute Cook's claim is that the WRA is "a group made up of seven athletes who have successfully circumnavigated the world on foot" or similar. That's not in-depth coverage. S0091 (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091, thanks, I hear your concern so I tried to look for mentions before the April 8th event. I found many, see this web search:

"How many pairs of shoes does it take to run around the world?". Christian Science Monitor. ISSN 0882-7729. Retrieved 2024-04-12.
"À Rouen, la marathonienne de l'extrême boucle son Tour du monde". leparisien.fr (in French). 2022-09-19. Retrieved 2024-04-12.

I don't think that these are all churnalism, and as that's a subjective term it's difficult to prove one way or the other. Furthermore, I don't think that an article needs to specifically say "WRA is..." by name for portions of the article to contribute to notability; members or components of the group may be discussed as well. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with the Independent and Sky News articles the WRA in these examples is only really being mentioned in passing due to an association with a notable event which are the actual focus of the articles.

These all seem like examples of WP:INHERITORG

An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it

Even the BBC article is in fact largely covering the pursuits of Olsen and the World Running Club - an entity which is not actually equivalent to WRA and was created almost a year before the WRA was founded. The WRA is only discussed over two sentences in the BBC article. That article is evidence for the notability of the WRC, not the WRA:

A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries

Perhaps as a compromise the WRA (or maybe more justifiably the World Running Club) could be merged with Olsen’s Wikipedia page until further evidence can be found for notability? Jaa.eem (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaa.eem, a common theme in this discussion is that WRA is mentioned in a wide variety of sources, but there are concerns about depth. Could we not apply the combining principle, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability? This is stated in WP:BASIC for people but surely the principle applies just as well in this situation. For an organization that is so widely covered in so many WP:RSP reliable sources, the more I research this topic the more I think we would be making a mistake to delete that may be biased by the behavior of COI editors. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NORG explicitly states that an organisation must have multiple sources providing significant coverage. In fact, it also explicitly states that “A collection of multiple trivial sources does not become significant.”

WP:BASIC plainly cannot be applied as suggested. Jaa.eem (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh...as the nom, I am not stuck on using the NCORP sourcing criteria given the crossover of org/sports/club but certainly WP:BASIC does not apply. I think GNG makes enough sense which requires WP:SIGCOV by multiple sources. Either way, I think the three of us need to step back so others can opine. S0091 (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it should be controversial to utilise WP:NORG.

Scanning a bit deeper into the guidelines there is also a section specifics for NGOs which describes the WRA by their own admission: Wikipedia:NGO

This also states that multiple significant sources are required. Jaa.eem (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific aspect of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) is relevant here? It’s very possible that I’ve missed it but those guidelines do not appear to provide any specific guidance for organisations claiming to be a governing body. The “basic criteria” appears to be in relation to sports people rather than organisations.

Furthermore, the Independent and Sky News articles you have linked provide only trivial coverage of the WRA itself - they are instead focussed on Russ Cook and comments made by individuals who are members of the WRA regarding Russ Cook. Jaa.eem (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaa.eem, given that the lede of NSPORT specifically mentions sports organizations, I think it is worth considering the policy as a whole. Because there isn't any specific section for a governing body, I would try to apply the "spirit" of WP:SPORTBASIC, even though it is about people, in lieu of more specific criteria. SPORTBASIC prong 5 says that if there is at least one non-database source, which we can agree that the BBC article is, then "there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article". I'm open to other ideas, but in my review of the material I am having a hard time being comfortable with a delete decision here in light of the breadth of coverage. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst WP:SPORTBASIC is specific to people. The section of NSPORT that covers organizations relevant to clubs, WP:NTEAM, states: This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline.

Since notability is not inherited, the notability of an athlete does not imply the notability of a team or club, or vice versa.

The BBC article describes WRA as a club, though they frame it as a travel club, so I think GNG is the relevant guideline. S0091 (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this @Habst

My read of WP:SPORTBASIC is that it is intended to reduce the burden of evidence of notability for individual people which I think is justifiable - I would suggest that a sportsperson on the borderline of genuine notability (putting aside Wikipedia’s guidelines for a moment) is less likely to have comprehensive secondary sourcing available and thus reducing the burden of evidence makes sense. Conversely I would suggest that a genuinely notable “international governing body” would realistically have substantial coverage and thus reducing the burden of evidence purely by virtue of being related to sport cannot be justified.

Furthermore, as @S0091 says WP:NSPORT does provide guidance for clubs which I think is a much closer analogue to this example than an individual sports person. Jaa.eem (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaa.eem and @S0091, thanks for your thoughtful responses. The reason why I went to WP:NSPORT is because it's the most specific guideline I could find that includes the subject. If I were to describe WRA, I would say it's a "sports organization" and that phrase appears exactly in the lede of NSPORT but not any other guideline.

The WP:NTEAM section, on the other hand, doesn't seem to apply because I would struggle to call the WRA a team (it doesn't compete against other "teams", for example) nor is it a "club" in the European sense of the word intended there, a sports club.

I agree that "international governing body" is also a good descriptor, and I think that we should have high standards for notability when there's already a competing governing body so as not to place WP:UNDUE weight on one over the other. But in this case for the specific niche of the organization (running across continents), there doesn't seem to be any competing body setting standards, so I don't think we would be falling in to that trap. What do you think? --Habst (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that given the lack of specificity in WP:NSPORT it would be better to fall back to WP:NORG.

There is a substantial difference in the scope of a organisation which competes within a sport vs an “international governing body” of a sport. If a sports team should meet GNG surely a governing body shouldn’t be subject to more lax guidelines?

Also, with regards to the issue of undue weight I would suggest that a high standards of notability should be applied regardless. The status of “international governing body” effectively confers a level of ownership over a sport thus I think there should be a high level of confidence that such a status is widely agreed upon. Jaa.eem (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is discussed at length in numerous notable sources.--2601:345:0:52A0:E165:4C72:14FB:3B9A (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources discuss the subject at length beyond the previously cited BBC article? Jaa.eem (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even the BBC article doesn't discuss the WRA at length. It mentions it once in the context of the World Runners Club, a related but different organisation. Cortador (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is insufficient sourcing, no in-depth coverage, and the article created as an ad. Cortador (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources don't establish notability Dexxtrall (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed WP:ATD: Redirect and merge some details into List of pedestrian circumnavigators as a governing authority for the running circumnavigations. --Habst (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a redirect, though I think "governing authority" might be a stretch but that's a content issue. Pinging others: @Jaa.eem, @Cortador, @Dexxtrall, what you think about redirecting? S0091 (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the World Runners Association aren't a governing authority, and would be reluctant about a merge if it winds up suggesting that they are. Redirect is fine though, and not entirely opposed to some content being merged if done appropriately ~~~ Dexxtrall (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to a redirect, though I agree about the content concerns. Jaa.eem (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Even with the paltry sources, there are just too many of them to ignore. [19] seems to be a RS, it talks about the one individual but always mentioning the WRA. There are about a dozen stories that discuss him and the WRA is mentioned, we should have enough for at least BASIC here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also a brief paragraph in this German book [20], my German is rusty but a Google translate upload of the image talks about the club existing since 2014. I think we have just enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a single mention in a self-published book.

There doesn’t appear to be a single source providing significant coverage of the subject - they’re all largely passing mentions in articles about other notable events/people.

I think @Habst’s suggestion of a redirect is justified given the number of mentions but there’s not enough information from secondary sources to justify a full article. Jaa.eem (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b BASIC only applies to people, not entities or other topics. The source you linked to is not about WRA and is only a couple mentions. S0091 (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barely at GNG then with minimal coverage, but enough of it. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the German source, what else does is say about WRA? I only see a sentence. S0091 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of pedestrian circumnavigators: All the sources are about the "World Runners Association is contesting..." or "claiming..." something about Russ Cook. A BBC article writes about how the World Runners Club came to be, mentioning the World Runners Association in one paragraph. Is there anything specifically about the World Runners Association? I don't think so. A lack of significant coverage. Cooper (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP and WP:NOTINHERITED. Sourcing is entirely about members of this group. Not all registered charities are automatically notable, as there are thousands. It is a borderline stealing our bandwidth situation. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian, thanks, what do you think about the proposed alternative to deletion above? --Habst (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Habst, I do not oppose a redirect or very selective merge. Bearian (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Butt

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

BLP fails WP:GNG. only sources are Databases. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Pakistan. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers Not sure there would be enough coverage of a player of this many games for there to be enough coverage for a WP:GNG pass. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the nomination. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:19, 17 April 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. Sandstein 19:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft ION

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

No sources outside of crypto pubs, which are not notable per WP:NCRYPTO. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: looks like a dead project to me, with no continuing presence and no notable impact on its launch. Update: according to the ION Github, Microsoft is only a sustaining sponsor, and this is not a Microsoft product, so even the title "Microsoft ION" is a misnomer; it's actually developed by the Decentralized Identity Foundation, who are themselves a redlink -- I've reflected the article to reflect this. Still a definite delete. — The Anome (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It had enough time to expand I don't see that it can be improved and its notability is very poor I'm sorry this is not a paper project nor a mirror. Acartonadooopo (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There do exist various scattered writings about it online, but I haven't been able to find any RS. While the name misnomer is easily fixed with a page move, there's ultimately nothing out there to establish notability (which is of course, the issue). WhoAteMyButter (🌷_talk│🌻^contribs) 19:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete : is Microsoft still working on it? I guess they dont after one google search. Or maybe in fiture for now DELETE AnkkAnkur (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RocknRollDating

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

Article created by Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MusicLover650 evading a salting on Rocknrolldating. None of the sources I looked at discuss the subject in sufficient depth to qualify for WP:NORG * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Sexuality and gender, Canada, United States of America, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references I can find meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sagarmatha Choudhary Eye Hospital, Lahan

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

Previously deleted numerous times and salted as Sagarmatha Choudhary Eye Hospital. Not seeing the kind of coverage that would be required to establish notability per WP:NORG * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:14, 11 April 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 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:01, 18 April 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. Sandstein 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saxoncourt

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

No signs of news coverage, only coverage is in books about cram schools in clearly passing coverage. Even if we take the (now dead) Japanpost links at face value they are, at best, routine coverage. Fails WP:GNG pretty clearly. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Japan, and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much self promotion here http://www.saxoncourt.net/en/groupnetwork.php Acartonadooopo (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I added to Companies delsort because although they operate schools, this is about Saxoncourt Holdings, Ltd. The page is a bit confused about whether it is a company or companies (I presume it is multiple companies held in a shell company), but that does appear to be the primary topic. Therefore WP:NCORP pertains as relevant guidelines and the sources on the page do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Neither could I find anything that meets WP:SIRS. Information is either passing, or lacks independence or is a primary source. Non notable company (or companies!). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage. This is not a high school or college, but rather a company that runs tutoring services and cram schools. Bearian (talk) 14:38, 15 April 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. Sandstein 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Screams of Cold Winter (UK)

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

No real evidence of notability, and tagged as non-notable for years without improvement. Previously deleted and salted at Screams of Cold Winter * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing of notability in the article and the only real reference I can find on these guys is a review at soundspheremag.com which does not seem like significant coverage. Article references seem to be mostly local news. InDimensional (talk) 11:37, 13 April 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Meyer (producer)

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

Practically unsourced since creation. No evidence of notability. Previously deleted and salted as Swayd. Also including Lunar Sound, the studio he operated, which is similarly unreferenced. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable producer, a web search brings up no coverage whatsoever and the article reads like a résumé. InDimensional (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP and WP:RS. There are zero sources in the article, a violation of BLP. We usually delete articles about producers, who are run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The article has been updated and refined with multiple sources added. Richard Meyer is a notable producer in Switzerland, and it is important for non French-speaking people in Europe to be able to read about him as his company, Lunar Sound, is an active recording studio. LissyBaldwin (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last.fm, Discogs, Apple Music and Dailymotion are not the best sources. InDimensional (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about physical newspaper articles? Unfortunately their archives haven't been made digitally available to the public, but I can cite the sources. LissyBaldwin (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate the additions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of content was added but no new in-depth coverage I can see other than this from China Daily, but I don't think using a Chinese source of questionable reliability/indendence to establish notability of a Swiss producer is wise. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about physical newspaper articles? Unfortunately their archives haven't been made digitally available to the public, but I can cite the sources. LissyBaldwin (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 12:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LissyBaldwin: it would be helpful if you could detail those newspaper sources here as someone might have access to them and could evaluate them, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! There's an article from Le Matin dated October 7, 2006 and another from that same newspaper dated October 14, 2007. I know that there were others but couldn't tell you the dates. All Swiss publications, all in French. LissyBaldwin (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 18:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balls Island

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

Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The small island seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article. Geschichte (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, New York, and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This claims it was featured in national geographic [21], any thoughts on how to confirm and evaluate the claim.James.folsom (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know what to do. The link above is just a real estate ad, and they could be lying about national geographic. But if it's true then it might be notable. I can't find any mention in the newspapers for this. so I could accept that maybe there is a single secondary source on this place and still vote delete. But, I don't think others are going to go along with that. As far as I can tell, only national geographic subscribers can search their back issues, so....James.folsom (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Walter F. Burmeister's book The Susquehanna River and Its Tributaries gives this a sentence, and even then discusses this only as part of a group of islets. If even that doesn't document this island in depth, there is indeed little hope for expansion. Uncle G (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the National Geo article exists, it's probably just a list of river islands or some such. If that article had said anything quotable about this place, the real estate ad would certainly have quoted it.James.folsom (talk) 22:04, 14 April 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 14:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enda Caldwell

AfDs for this article:

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

While the WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues noted in the first AfD are addressed (incl. the self-penned stuff about "his passion for cars and the motor industry", "[being] instrumental in establishing Navan's Energy Radio [..] from a garden shed" and "his love of drama"), there is still nothing to indicate that the applicable notability criteria are met. In terms of:

WP:CREATIVE (applying to creative professionals) there are no sources to suggest that the subject is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successor".
WP:ENT (applying to voice actors) the subject doesn't appear to have had "significant roles in multiple notable films [..] or other productions".
WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG, the only sources we have (and the only sources found after several years of trying to address COI/AUTOBIO/PROMO/NOTCV concerns) are either not independent (like pulseny.com, radioluxembourg.co.uk, allaccess.com, which are all webpages/press releases from the subject's employers) or not significant (like radiowaves.fm, manchestereveningnews.co.uk, Independent Woman, worcesternews.co.uk, Business Post, in which the subject is BARELY mentioned in passing). The ONLY two pieces which deal with the subject in any depth, and which are not news releases by the subject's employers, are the two low-ball interview pieces. On benztown.com and Meath Chronicle. One a small local paper and the other a speciality industry outlet. Both the type interviews, per WP:INTERVIEW#Notability, which are "broadly unhelpful in establishing notability".

I am, TBH, annoyed at myself for staying on the fence in the second AfD. And remain baffled by the "keep" recommendations in the first AfD (indicating that two of the five refs somehow and unequivocally supported GNG; When they're the same refs we have today; Still clearly not independent and/or passing mentions.) Anyway, while I'm loathe to relitigate, as the last AfD was "no consensus", and as (despite significant effort) I can't justify removing the hatnotes, I'm left with AfD (again).

TLDR version. Subject is a jobbing radio presenter. Like any other. Who also works as a voice artist. Doing station idents and the like. And was once an extra in a film. With insufficient coverage to expand the article beyond a NOTCV "list of jobs" the subject's had. And no independent biographical coverage contributing to notability. The WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMO issues (clear in the article's initial creation) also remain difficult to overlook. Guliolopez (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see notability, this is simply a CV in prose-form. I can't find mention of this person in any RS; what's used now is trivial or non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:COI and NOTCV issues, just another DJ, not a notable person. Spleodrach (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm into radio, so I know of this guy. But searching through the usual places you can find old radio news, there's just nothing for him other than brief mentions of him in "remember Atlantic 252?"-type filler articles. Similar in the Irish News Archives where he appears listed in local radio schedules but little else. Flip Format (talk) 11:13, 12 April 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. ✗plicit 06:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arcon 2

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage on the web and clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO InDimensional (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. InDimensional (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has an entry in the reference book Drum 'n' Bass: The Rough Guide. Most serious dead-tree reference works have stricter entry requirements than our notability guidelines. Mach61 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 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 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Minardi

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about an actor, and added a reference, but cannot see significant coverage which would meet WP:GNG. His strongest claim to notability as an actor is his role as the friend of the protagonist in Ace Lightning, but I do not think this meets WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Canada. Tacyarg (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, actors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist — the notability test doesn't hinge on listing acting roles, it hinges on showing WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about them and their performances. But the only footnote here isn't enough all by itself, and I've had about as much luck finding more as the nominator did. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 13 April 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 List of mayors of Ipswich, Queensland. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Harding

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

Mayors are not automatically notable under WP:NPOL. I could not find sufficient sources with significant coverage to demonstrate that this article meets the GNG. In the article, only the Brisbane Times may count – the rest are electoral results and a government (CCC) report that doesn't mention the subject. As part of WP:BEFORE, I found two articles [22] [23], neither of which constitutes SIGCOV of the subject. Toadspike (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Eden, a discussion on a different mayor article created by the same editor. Toadspike (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added some further sources which I think come under SIGCOV Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike if the "Delete" vote wins can we instead redirect to List of mayors of Ipswich, Queensland similar to what happened with the pages of Amy Eden and Jilly Gibson? Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a redirect would also be appropriate. Toadspike (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Military, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to pass WP:SIGCOV based on the cited sources. I'd need to see a more convincing source analysis by the nominator to be convinced otherwise.4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing this nomination after some time, I would like to thank Totallynotarandomalt69 for adding further good sources that provide significant coverage. This article now comes close to proving notability. However, per WP:GNG, Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Recounting the sources, only ABC News and The Courier Mail clearly meet the GNG. I do not believe that the Brisbane Times article provides significant coverage (four sentences are about the subject herself, most of which is simply summarizing electoral results), and the government sources are not SIGCOV. Thus, I still believe the article should be deleted/redirected and will not withdraw my nomination, though I understand if editors disagree. Toadspike (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ipswich is not a large enough place to assume its mayors are notable, and I'm only seeing local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What we like in articles about a local officeholder is information that illustrates the impact of their tenure in office. What projects did they champion, what is their legacy. Size of city is not an important factor. Like the nominator, I do not see that significant sources exists. --Enos733 (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish GNG here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are pretty good and she's notable in her own right, 230k people definitely isn't an insignificant number. AmNowEurovision (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is precedence for mayors not holding enough political signifance in a 3 tier system of government, see https://w.wiki/9gw7 Teraplane (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Lacking significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There's some desire expressed to keep or redirect the page to the film, but discussion consensus is that insufficient reliable sources exist to support the page as a biography of a person not clearly proven deceased. I'm going to redirect the deleted page to the film, per thoughts expressed in this discussion. BusterD (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Grantham

AfDs for this article:

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

This biography was originally deleted 15 June 2020 due to "lack of in-depth sources". The same objections apply to the recreated article: subject does not meet notability under WP:NACTOR, which requires "significant roles in multiple notable films". Muzilon (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- keep** seems to be notable based on references SanDiegoDan (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the references fail WP:SIGCOV. Only one notable film ("Last House"). Her few other appearances were non-notable supporting roles in obscure low-budget/porn productions. The obituary cited for the Lucy Greenberg who died in New York in 2023 has no biographical information - we don't even have a reliable secondary source to verify that this is the same person as the subject. Muzilon (talk) 23:57, 21 March 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) 04:11, 28 March 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) 09:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are a lot of hard-to-justify sources in this article. Agree we can't see that the aliases actually correspond to her. It seems that both obituaries are of different people. All we have is one major film, and I don't think that's enough for WP:NACTOR at least without some significant coverage devoted to her. Oblivy (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Probably not meeting ACTOR, but we seem to have enough for GNG, a detailed biography and some coverage of her life after the Wes Craven film. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b curious what you're seeing in terms of biography. She gets mentions for the Wes Craven film, but I only see biography in terms of the obituaries neither of which is clearly her. (Go ahead, change my mind!) Oblivy (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 2 and 3 mostly, seem to flesh out the article. An actress with one role for which she's remembered, the rest is nicely detailed. I think we have GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If by "source 2" you mean the engagement notice for "Miss Lucy Grunther" in the NY Times, I doubt whether that qualifies as independent of the subject - it may well be a paid advertisement. If source 3 is the Fred Lincoln interview, that is very much a trivial mention of a "Lucy" whose surname is not even given. Muzilon (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it's a nicely detailed article but I don't see how this article has been constructed out of the sources, unless Source 2 and the Szulkin book have a LOT of biographical information.

1 - mismatch of birth year (1948 vs 1951) and the description of Lucy doesn't provide a clear link
2 - can't access but if it's an engagement notice that's not really notability-worthy
3 - dubious as it just says "Lucy" in a passing mention, although Lincoln did co-star with her in Last House.
4 - passing mention, unclear if this is the same person as it's not about a movie she's known to have acted in
5/10 - can't access the Szulkin book
6/8 - brief mentions plus a quote
7 - about the movie not her
9 - barely a passing mention, just lists her as an actress in the movie and in a photo caption
11 - mentions her a lot as part of the extended DVD features
12 - no content, possibly not about her (again, the 1948 birth year)

Oblivy (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the nominator, I would support a redirect to Last House on the Left, her only notable film. Muzilon (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could have helped in improving the article but there was no any reliable source to what the biography says after making my research on google. The subject does not meet a stand alone wiki page but can be mention as one of the cast to the article movie The Last House on the Left.--Meligirl5 (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. I wish this article could be saved but there just isn't sourcing. Perhaps merging with the movie article (although that implicates issues of undue weight being given to one actor). Oblivy (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we could include a couple of sentences about her in the "Last House" article, but much of this biography seems to be veering into WP:PSEUDO. Muzilon (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is close to being reached. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ENT Would have been helpful to see the original 2020 deletion nomination version of this article, but I find no access to it on Wikipedia. This current article seems to have been created as a new article. The article claims, "After starring in several porn loops in the early 1970s ... " but only two films listed before her so-called breakthrough. Of her five films listed, one was an unaccredited role, one was a short film. In one, she plays herself. There is just nothing that justifies keeping this. — Maile (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out how this was created, in spite of the original deletion. The Baudelaire Fortune created Draft:Lucy Grantham as a redirect to the title Lucy Grantham. So it looks like a brand new article, instead of the one that was deleted. So in other words, The Baudelaire Fortune found a way around the deletion process. — Maile (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wayback Machine has an archived copy of the version that was deleted in June 2020. Muzilon (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link! — Maile (talk) 03:28, 12 April 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 12:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Greaves-Neal

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this actor, and cannot find reliable sources to add. The article has been tagged as an unreferenced BLP since December 2023. I do not think he meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mentions found, no SIGCOV. As a side note, article has apparent history of editing by the subject.Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG as has no independent, verifiable references.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find independent significant sources. Won't pass WP:GNG. Besides, passing mentions can't be considered as references. Hkkingg (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Day Smith

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for the previously unreferenced BLP on this Flatland BMX rider, and added two references. They are brief mentions, however, and I cannot see WP:SIGCOV of him. He does not meet WP:NCYC. Tacyarg (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Cycling, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All what is being found is press releases. Fails WP:SIGCOV as there are no independent, verifiable references.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting ACTOR, or even general notability. Nothing found in news or in a general search, other than some BMX websites and a rather bare Imdb profile. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 11 April 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!} 07:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White cake

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

Non-notable cake that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. This should be turned into a redirect to cake, which should include a sentence stating "White cake, named after the color of the crumb, is made without using egg yolks". BaduFerreira (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's more cultural content for this subject than just a description of the contents. White cake, sometimes also called silver cake, isn't just a yolkless yellow cake. From the historical viewpoint, it required not just a willingness to omit the egg yolks (which could be used in other dishes), but also having access to plenty of butter, refined wheat flour, and refined white sugar, which meant that it started off as a luxury and a status symbol (ISBN 9780199313396, "Wedding cake" by Carol Wilson). Just having pure white icing was an expensive status symbol in the 17th century; having a white cake under that icing was basically never done. Properly speaking, the modern white cakes – a butter-based layer cake – didn't exist until the latter part of the 19th century (ISBN 9780199734962, "Wedding" by Wendy A. Woloson), because before the baking powder revolution (latter third of the 19th century), producing a white cake would have been a technical triumph. The almond-based lady cake (from the 1830s) also omitted egg yolks and was the closest you could realistically get before then (ISBN 9780199313396, "Celebration cakes" by Stephen Schmidt), unless you wanted to risk a tough "white sponge" (ISBN 9780199734962, "Cake" by Sally Parham; that white sponge eventually developed into the modern angel food cake). On the cultural side, they became associated with weddings and with christenings. By the early-to-mid 20th century, the modern white butter cake had supplanted the traditional fruitcake at weddings (Queen Victoria had a fruit cake at her wedding; only the icing was white), and by the end of the century, for non-wedding celebrations, chocolate was more popular (ibid). Box mixes for white cakes were introduced around 1930 (ISBN 9780199313396, "Cake mix" by Laura Shapiro). Additionally, as white cake is used as a building block, there could be a fairly long section on variations or cake styles that are white layers with something added, e.g., Lady Baltimore cake. So there you are: with a couple of articles from two high-quality books from Oxford University Press, and you can re-write the whole article now. There are also some academic articles about white cakes, but their usefulness for an encyclopedia article is mostly not obvious to me (e.g., "White layer cake batter emulsion characteristics" or "Gelatinization of starch and white layer cake quality", though "Better White Layer Cakes Ahead?" may have nutritional information). If you were to go looking for particular content that is unique to white cake, I'd suggest looking into the difficulty of making a really good white cake with gluten-free flour substitutes. Chocolate, fruit, or spice are trivial to convert, and yellow's not too difficult, but a white cake is hard to get right, without any unwanted flavors shining through. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another classic baking technique. Maybe this source will help: What's The Difference Between Yellow, White, and Vanilla Cake?. The Banner talk 15:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Classic cake, possibly the most widely-known of modern cakes. Valereee (talk) 18:51, 13 April 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!} 07:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spice cake

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

Non-notable cake that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is this similar enough to Spiced breads for a move? Bearian (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a spiced bread or spice bread article exists (the latter is a redirect to the spice cake article). Are you thinking of sliced bread? BaduFerreira (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spice cake is a cake whose most prominent characteristic is the inclusion of strongly flavored spices. It is a category of related cakes, like fruitcake or chocolate cake. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is my absolutely favorite type of cake but I don't think this makes me involved here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Relying primarily on "Cake" by Sally Parham in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America, I there are two possible scopes for this article. The one that interests me most is the butter cake version after the baking powder revolution. However, there's also the much older yeast-based spice cakes from the 17th and 18th centuries (Martha Washington's great cake is at the tail end of that), which may be what Bearian is thinking of. If you imagine one of these spice-and-currants cakes, originally rather more like Raisin bread than like a layer cake, a modern spice cake translates that flavor profile out of the original yeast bread or the heavy fruit cake and into a modern butter cake. Parham writes 'The old fruited, spiced cakes baked for tea, too, were dragooned into the new butter cake family... Already darkened, if only slightly, by fruit and spice, these cakes gathered into a new clutch of butter cakes that were intentionally darkened to a fare-thee-well—by spices and brown sugar or molasses, to make “spice cakes”.' She also says spice cake was the second most popular category of butter cake during the 20th century (after chocolate, before vanilla), and that they adapted to the mid-century vegetable oil trend nicely. Examples of modern spice cakes include Applesauce cake, Carrot cake, and Gingerbread, as well as some less common ones, such as Gâteau de Sirop or Parkin (cake). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found coverage in Food & Wine, Southern Living, and The Daily Meal with just a very brief search. I don't see any signs this dish isn't notable. Valereee (talk) 18:47, 13 April 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 06:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Bozicevic

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT or WP:NTENNIS. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Tennis, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NTENNIS and also just about meets GNG thanks to sources such as [24] (bypassing the paywall) [25] and [26]. Iffy★Chat -- 10:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bozicevic is just a bare pass of WP:NTENNIS, only because of a local wildcard for doubles. Like Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)/FAQ says: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline". As for WP:GNG, 1st source posted here (very local though, Gold Coast media covering a player from Gold Coast? no way!) is decent, the 2nd paywalled one is a WP:PROMOtional article handled by her former management company My Manager which they even list at [27] and the 3rd one is a very routine match report of a local tournament. My searches didn't bring much up, doesn't meet GNG. Seems like yet another of those rising tennis juniors that eventually went nowhere. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - While she barely meets Tennis Project guidelines, it's in doubles which has been on the wane for decades. She needs to show a bit more success before making it as a full-fledged article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also support draftifying as a form of WP:ATD per above. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I agree with the two discussions above. Bduke (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree with this MaskedSinger (talk) 08:25, 17 April 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!} 06:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mupen64Plus

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

I could not find any reliable secondary sources. For the sources in the article:

#3 is one paragraph in a list
#8 is one paragraph sourced to a forum post
#9 does not mention the software
#10 mentions the software once

10 is sourced to an article that also only mentions the software once. QuietCicada chirp 15:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. QuietCicada chirp 15:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Found an article in Win Magazine, and a paragraph in CD-Action. Combining that with the Digital Trends mention I think it weakly passes GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources discovered by Mika1h. I am no longer weakly in support of it given the Softonic reviews that have come to light. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - Digital Trends' one paragraph isn't what I would consider significant coverage. Win Magazine article starts talking about the emulator only at halfway point so it's basically similar to Digital Trends in word count. CD-Action is the best of the three but still not especially beefy article. Not enough to pass GNG with these three sources. --Mika1h (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mika1h: I also found a Softpedia review of the emulator. That is considered a reliable source as well, maybe it will change your view. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Softpedia does reviews on request so I don't count their reviews towards notability. --Mika1h (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep since I found some reviews for a variant of the emulator by Softonic: [28], [29], also a list entry from Pocket Gamer: [30]. --Mika1h (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for newly found source eval.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:22, 27 March 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) 01:57, 4 April 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:00, 11 April 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyn Squire

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

I don't see any reliable source secondary coverage on this person. I do see a lot of primary sources - stuff Lyn Squire himself wrote. Unfortunately, that does not meet WP:GNG. His writings claim a few mid-level positions at the World Bank, but I can't even find coverage of those in secondary sources. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Wales, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Msrasnw (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to me (the article creator) a clear keep. As has produced a substantial body of academic research (with some rather high citation scores: see Google Scholar and with lots of well known co-authors (though this is only indicative of (and doesn't count for) notability)) and was editor of a well-established academic journal in their subject area. The Economic Analysis of Projects is really famous in SCBA world as the WBs summary of , operationalisation of the OECD approach. The interview at the World Bank - Oral History is interesting and the little bio at the LSE/Oxfords IGC seem reliable enough to me. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
No coverage by reliable independent sources about the subject of the article or any of his work as an individual thought leader. If the subject was really notable, he would have received some coverage given the notability of the World Bank. The high citation count of the co-authored papers at World Bank publications are more of an indication that the subject had some notable good friends at the World Bank. Contributor892z (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV and no claim that meets any of the 7 rules at WP:ACADEMIC. Some citations at Google Scholar but not enough for notability I think. Contributor892z (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Heavy citations on Google Scholar (multiple works with four-digit citation counts) pass WP:PROF#C1. Reviews of Employment Policy in Developing Countries (JSTOR 1973175, JSTOR 2726474) and Agricultural Household Models (JSTOR 2726474, JSTOR 1242324, ProQuest 1311343250, doi:10.1016/0304-3878(88)90028-4) also give him a weak pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only 6 publications with four digit citation counts. I don’t think it’s enough for WP:PROF#C1.Contributor892z (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of like saying "only one Nobel prize. I don't think it's enough." Most academics would be very happy if even a single one of their publications did so well. If this were high energy physics where collaborations of hundreds of authors routinely get more citations than that, it would be different, but in this case all publications have few authors. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are World Bank publications. They are not subject to academic peer review and yet always get thousands of citations. And the subject wasn’t notable enough within the World Bank to get a page at the World Bank website. This Wiki page looks more like hidden publicity for the fiction book being written by the subject. Contributor892z (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Contributor892z, I think looking at Squire on Google Scholar he has well cited publications in several of the most respected (by academic economics and development) peer-reviewed journals: The American Economic Review (US's AEA leading Journal) , the UK's leading society's (RES) journal the Economic Journal, the Review of Economics and Statistics, Journal of development economics, Economic Development and Cultural Change, amongst others. (Also I think the World Bank Economic Review is itself peer-reviewed.) I created the page because I used the Economics of Project Analysis years ago and was now using it again and looked up Squire (and Van der Tak) to find out about them. The novel surprised me, but I thought it interesting, and I am can assure you I am in no way acting with any COI and was not intending to do hidden publicity for his new book, Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)).[reply]

Re "And the subject wasn’t notable enough within the World Bank to get a page at the World Bank website.": please don't state obvious falsehoods. [31] is a page about him at the World Bank web site, for one. There may be others but they're difficult to find among the many many pages reporting work by him at the World Bank web site. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you found a page. I couldn’t find it, so thanks for finding it. But, still, nothing notable. His employer was notable, but his role wasn’t. And notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.Contributor892z (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Contributor892z (talk). WP:PROF#C1 specifically says if their "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline" - these World Bank papers are not, by any stretch of the imagination, research that has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline. They are not the same thing as peer-reviewed academic publications. Andrei Shleifer is an economist with significant academic work in his field. Lyn Squire is just a guy who had a job at the World Bank for years and now self-published a non-notable book. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-publishing a non-notable book does nothing to negate other notable contributions. But I think this should remain omitted unless we can find reliable secondary sources. I don't think an author-association member profile counts as reliable for this purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You ignored my main point - he does not have other notable contributions. His World Bank documents are not peer-reviewed academic publications. There is no reliable secondary source coverage of him, and so he fails WP:GNG by that criteria alone. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fred Zepelin: so, just for avoidance of doubt, are advocating for deleting the article or are you just giving a neutral comment?Contributor892z (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Fred Zepelin (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for sake of clarity, are you seriously trying to argue that American Economic Review, Journal of Development Economics, and The Economic Journal are not peer-reviewed academic journals? It seems you are joining Contributor892z in cluttering this AfD with obvious falsehoods. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have taken this personally. The paper published under his name at American Economic Review was just a discussion piece from a conference so it really didn't follow the standard peer review process. Contributor892z (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take it personally when people waste the time of multiple other editors with ridiculous arguments at AfDs and risk producing an outcome based on falsehood. It makes me wonder why you are arguing so hard that you exceed the truth rather than taking a properly neutral fact-finding approach. It also makes me wonder why you two Zs are completing each other's thoughts (the question about academic publications was really intended for the other Z) making it very confusing for me to keep straight who is who. I suppose one of you has some similar argument why all of his other academic publications are not actually academic publications despite their prima facie appearance? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No argument here. His two or three publications at the other journals are actually academic publications. And then loads of sponsored work for a notable employer, which are not actually academic publications. Contributor892z (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re The World Bank Economic Review is a respected peer-reviewed academic journal: my understanding is that the WBER is a respected (by academic economics (and especially by professional academic development economics) peer-reviewed academic journal. On it website it has a descripion of its peer-review process. A peer reviewed article in JEEA (Pantelis Kalaitzidakis, Theofanis P. Mamuneas, Thanasis Stengos, Rankings of Academic Journals and Institutions in Economics, Journal of the European Economic Association, Volume 1, Issue 6, 1) list it in 37th place (see page 1349) - ahead of what I thought was the leading development economics journal (The Journal of Development Economics). Heckman & Moktan (Heckman, J. J., & Moktan, S. (2020). Publishing and promotion in economics: The tyranny of the top five. Journal of Economic Literature, 58(2), 419-470.) include it in their data set of academic economic journals. Liner & Amin (Liner, G. H., & Amin, M. (2004). Methods of ranking economics journals. Atlantic Economic Journal, 32, 140-149.) include it in their data set of academic economic journals and as it 7th in terms of X-citations in international economics journals (p. 142). Articles in it seem to me clearly academic publications. Does any one have information to the contrary? (Msrasnw (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)) ((Letting User:Contributor892z & User:Fred Zepelin know about this contribution))[reply]

@Msrasnw: the referees are from inside the World Bank. It's not an independent source, a requirement for notability. Contributor892z (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? My understanding is the WBER has lots of reviewers, most in fact, who are not at the WB. Where have you got this from? (Msrasnw (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

[citation needed]. Its chief editors are not from the World Bank. Most of its editorial board is not from the world bank. Its information for authors welcomes submissions from non-affiliates of the World Bank and explicitly says that consistency with World Bank policy is not relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: and @Msrasnw: I really don’t want to move this away from the focus, which is the notability of the subject, but I do find it relevant to raise here that there are other independent and reliable sources that don’t trust the independence of World Bank research [32]. So this is not just my personal opinion. Contributor892z (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see lots of highly cited journal articles and books for NPROF, and I think it's enough even in what can be a higher citation field, particularly as a fair bit of the work predates the internet era. I also take seriously the NAUTHOR case outlined by David Eppstein above. The combination of the two cases is solid. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. IDEAS/RePEc lists him in their "top 10%" ranking of worldwide economists: [33]. His position on the listing, #2224, may not sound impressive, but we have a significantly larger number of articles on economists than that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nobody gets a good job at the World Bank without having some skills. But there are plenty of other good people out there that are top 10% of their profession and aren’t notable people. The rules for notability are clear. So the only question we have here is if his publication record is enough to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 and my opinion is that his publication record is not enough given that his most cited work came from publications in vehicles of his employer, which are questionable for research independence. He had a good job at a notable employer, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Contributor892z (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everyone who publishes academically does so under the official affiliation of their employer. Publishing while having an employer does not invalidate one's publications and does not have any relevance to WP:PROF#C1 notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s forget for a moment it’s Lyn Squire and let’s pretend is a top 10% tech researcher that does research for Google, for clear profit seeking reasons. And most of their well-known material came from publications made by or sponsored by Google. We probably would be closer to an agreement that this researcher is not notable just because of their research output. And now let’s come back to Lyn Squire. Shall we have a different conclusion just because it’s the World Bank (not for profit) instead of Google (profit seeking)? Contributor892z (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least you're consistent in packing this AfD with false and bogus arguments. We have plenty of articles on researchers at Google and Microsoft, notable among other reasons through their academic publications. Natasha Noy, Cynthia Dwork, and Mary Czerwinski are all examples. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per WP:NPROF, it doesn't matter who he works for. To expand on my keep rationale, I see at least three papers with citation counts in the 1000s that were published in well-established journals; also a long tail of papers with a reasonable number of citations. In addition, e.g. the book Economic Analysis of Projects was published by a reputable academic publisher, was reprinted several times, was translated into other languages, etc. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that he has three papers with high citation numbers from independent journals (where he wasn’t the main author though, so he may have contributed little). If that’s enough for notability, then so be it. But I don’t think it is, especially given that he wasn’t the lead author. The book doesn’t really help meeting WP:NAUTHOR unless it was the primary subject of multiple reliable independent reviews attesting the significance of the contribution of the book, which I don’t think it was. Contributor892z (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In many fields, such as economics or mathematics, the convention is that authors are listed alphabetically. In assessing WP:NPROF, I am exactly looking for several high impact papers, such as these. Meanwhile, the highly cited book _certainly_ helps meet WP:NPROF. Reviews of it include [34][35]. Other reviews of Squire's books include [36] (an edited volume), [37]. There are likely others, as much of Squire's work was before the internet era. C'mon. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple publications with 1k+ citations is a clear WP:NPROF#1 pass. As stated above, c'mon. Curbon7 (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good case for passing WP:PROF#C1, and a weaker one for passing WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Soong Yocklunn

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

An orphan article. Given the period when he lived, it was difficult to find sources. Small mentions come up in google books and Australian database trove. But nothing indepth to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, China, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've read this a few times and I'm still not sure why he's notable. Got a vegetable cart, involved with a church and passed away. Seems too local to be kept, reads like a biography from a local museum somewhere. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Oaktee B that this article seems to be an orphan article, and most of the attention and reliable sources are from obituaries. The decision to delete or merge Wikipedia articles is usually made based on established deletion policies and guidelines, (WP: GNG), reliable sources (WP: RS), and verifiability. If the article does not meet these criteria, the only link will not directly lead to the described reason. The scarcity of reliable sources leads to unreliability. Yangpeifu (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I read the article. Didn't really see his popularity from the article. His contributions are also not documented in the article and the sources of information about him are not detailed.Rachel.zrq (talk) Rachel.zrq (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Vats

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

Does not pass GNG or NACTOR. Has had no significant roles in the mentioned films. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, Fashion, India, and Rajasthan. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no major roles in films. Fails WP:GNG and none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth. I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor and unreliable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR. The actress is not well-known who has played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent articles and reviews. Fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:33, 11 April 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!} 03:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Han Sun-il

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG as it has no independent sources at all.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Same case as previous AfD regarding North Korean players. Svartner (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 13 April 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!} 03:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Han Song-hyok

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. Google search brings up only press releases. Again the article has no sources at all beside external links.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Same case as previous AfD regarding North Korean players. Svartner (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 13 April 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!} 03:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LARP Alliance, Inc.

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

Almost entirely unreferenced time capsule from 2011. No evidence of notability. Previously deleted and salted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LARP_Alliance * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG as has no independent sources of the subject.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:03, 11 April 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!} 02:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IPE Global Limited

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

WP:REFBOMBed with sources that only mention the organization in passing but don't provide the required in-depth, independent coverage. Previously deleted and salted as IPE Global * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 02:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This time too fails WP:GNG and none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth. If sources are found, please ping me.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO with only descriptions of things the group has done, nothing substantial about them as a company. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: due to lack of significant coverage. I have also nominated this company's chairman's page for deletion on similar grounds at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashwajit Singh. Teemu.cod (talk) 00:33, 18 April 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!} 02:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Roosevelt in Oyster Bay

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

an unsourced article about roosevelt's activities in oyster bay created by a user called user:inoysterbay violates at least 4 policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:GNG, WP:COI). ltb d l (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there definitely is a problem here in the fact that this unsourced list is so huge. As we can see by the navbox at the bottom of the article, as well as Category:Theodore Roosevelt, this particular Roosevelt is one of the most fascinating, popular, and overachieving leaders in American history. That said, this is an un-sourced list. Most likely, everything on here can be found in other articles about TR. I have no problem deleting this, if that's what is decided here. — Maile (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Lists, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Politics. Curbon7 (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search turns up quite a lot of published material on this topic. A large portion of (1) this book focuses on TR's connections with Oyster Bay. There's also (2) this piece from Newsday focused on TR's conections to the community. See also (3) this and (4) this. (Newspapers.com retrieves over 650,000 articles for the search (roosevelt "oyster bay") -- it would take a lot of time to comb through). Cbl62 (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't an encyclopaedia article, unfortunately, just a collection of trivia, and it's really poorly sourced. The problem here is that the information, if sourced, could be added either to the Roosevelt page, to the Oyster Bay page, or is already in other articles, and isn't really a useful navigation link. SportingFlyer T·C 05:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. George W. Bush was noted for spending time at Kennebunkport, but an article George W. Bush in Kennebunkport is not feasible. That is because it would - and Theodore Roosevelt in Oyster Bay is - be a collection of trivia, where the worthy items should be worked into the article Oyster Bay (hamlet), New York, where they currently are unreferenced. Geschichte (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete besides being a collection of trivia than an actual encyclopedia article, it also violates WP:COI) as the article was created by an actual fan/resident of the place, despite their last edit was in 2010.- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like a student essay, then gives an overly long list of times he's visited the place, then stuff associated with him. OR that doesn't really show why this is needing an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability aside, article reads almost nonsensical. Juxlos (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, others, and WP:NOR. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I do think that a President's summer retreat might be notable and worth an article, but that's why we have an article on the actual place: Sagamore Hill. Any salvageable information from this article might be worth merging into the article on the residence. Dan • ✉ 16:31, 17 April 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!} 02:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Roberts, Indiana

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

Searching for this is hopelessly masked by the former military facility in California, but judging by the topos it appears to have been a literal camp. The oldest topos don't show it or the main buildings there; then it abruptly appears. If someone could shed some moe light on this it would be helpful. Mangoe (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree there's no evidence this was ever an actual town or community. On all the old maps I checked there was nothing of any significance at the site well into the 20th century[38] and modern maps show nothing there now except a few scattered residences near an unremarkable stretch of road.[39] A 1930s plat map[40] indicates that tracts around the site were owned by the Roberts family, which presumably is the origin of the name, but I'm not sure how the spot came to be a named locality on later maps. Seems safe to delete. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding anything via ProQuest or Internet Archive either. (Searched for "Camp Roberts" and "Indiana" together and got 141 hits on ProQuest, but they are all about Camp Roberts, California.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The brown county news papers have ~700 mentions of a community call Camp Roberts(some are for california), it has businesses but is never referred to as anything but a community or an area. First mention is a lost dog in 1952. It is not chronicled in [41], and this newspaper clipping [42] sums it up nicely. Look near the bottom of the first column.James.folsom (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James.folsom Nice work proving "appears to have been a literal camp" was on the money. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above discussion James.folsom (talk) 23:53, 16 April 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!} 02:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IPE Global Limited

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

WP:REFBOMBed with sources that only mention the organization in passing but don't provide the required in-depth, independent coverage. Previously deleted and salted as IPE Global * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 02:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This time too fails WP:GNG and none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth. If sources are found, please ping me.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO with only descriptions of things the group has done, nothing substantial about them as a company. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: due to lack of significant coverage. I have also nominated this company's chairman's page for deletion on similar grounds at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashwajit Singh. Teemu.cod (talk) 00:33, 18 April 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!} 02:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2026 South American U-17 Women's Championship

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

Per WP:TOOSOON. Way too early yet for this article to exist. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Football. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and South America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially a placeholder/template. There is a need to stamp out the practice of creating of event articles so far ahead of the event that nothing substantial can be said about it. Geschichte (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per @Geschichte. Svartner (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sadustu Tau (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way WP:TOOSOON. Anwegmann (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is WP:TOOSOON. Maybe drafting it may help a little. -Tumbuka Arch (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - way too early. Giant Snowman 09:29, 13 April 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. Normally, I'd redirect but there arguments against a redirect so I won't take that step myself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherd, Indiana

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

The lack of anything but a few houses at a crossroads, most of which appear to be modern, suggests that the entire history of the place is that of the post office. Does not appear be a real settlement. Mangoe (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect >>> Perry Township, Boone County, Indiana per WP:GEOLAND, which clearly states: If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. Djflem (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Right now the article claims that it (and Herr) are "unincorporated towns", which does not appear to be true. What ae we going to say about Shepherd that can be sourced? I'm not against merging the ones that actually are towns up to these articles, but as that is consistently opposed, it's time to reconsider this guideline. Mangoe (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a merge; it's a redirect to where it's already mentioned. Easily fixed: unincorporated communities.Djflem (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "town" to the preferred WP euphemism "community" doesn't fix the reason why we are here, which is that there is a lack of evidence for this "community". Mangoe (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't exist, so nothing needs to be redirected. This is one of many "places" that were created using a template. These usually have copy and paste errors as well. They always have the same 4 sources. Forte's list of post offices, which isn't proof that a populated place existed because post offices are not always located in populated places. GNIS which is not proof a place existed. The US census source isn't used, and is there because the creator was in too much of a hurry to remove it from the copy and paste job. I searched google, google books and google news, as well as newspapers.com and the other newspapers site in the Wikipedia library. No evidence of it's existence can be found outside of GNIS. It's just another rural post office that GNIS turned into a populated place.James.folsom (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't redirect: User James.folsom has it spot-on. There is nothing to be said about this place other than it has an entry in GNIS and once had a post office; redirection would just be confusing. Besides, what is the likelihood that someone would be searching for Shepherd, Indiana and find Perry Township informative? This is such an obscure place that anyone interested in it would already have far more information in hand than would be found at the target redirect article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This one's borderline. Shepherd does appear on various older maps marked as a town, such as this 1920s plat book, 1930s county map, etc. This is in contrast to Herr two miles south which isn't marked on any of them. Area newspapers note the creation of a post office at Shepherd (Jackson County Banner, 7 October 1886: "A post office has been established at Shepherd, Boone County, and Henry W. Glendenning commissioned postmaster."[43]) and it pops up occasionally as a named locality in the 1890s and early 1900s (Indianapolis News, 2 September 1901: "The next reunion will be held in the Allen Schenck grove, near Shepherd, in Boone County..."[44]). On the flip side, I see no evidence of businesses or significant settlement there. Probably safe to delete (even though it goes against my retentionist tendencies). ╠╣uw [talk] 12:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, I missed those entirely. Here are easier to get to links to the above news clippings. [45] [46]. They don't really help since this could still just be a post office. I'm more interested in the maps: Fayette is a nearby dot on that map and this source says that is a settlement [47] in the 1830's, but says that shepherd was just a post office. So I'm curious why Fayette and Shepherd are on those maps only in 1920-1930. The book is from 1995, so Shepherd is likely not a settlement. James.folsom (talk) 19:50, 14 April 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. There is a clear consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Fiesler

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

The article ultimately does not reach the notability criteria for any points of WP:ACADEMIC. It best approaches point 7, which it seems to rely on, but even there it lacks the widespread coverage in independent sources usually necessary to establish notability.

As an associate professor, Fiesler doesn't currently hold a high-level position in academia or has demonstrably had a large scholarly influence over her subject area (human-centered computing). Five out of seven of the article's sources are primary ([48] [49] [50] [51] [52]) and the remaining two are local news ([53] [54]), which are outlined in WP:NOTABILITY as not being sufficient enough to demonstrate a subject's notability. The Slate article is itself written by Fiesler and as such can't be used to demonstrate notabiltiy here. Looking into Fiesler online, news articles about her are either those she authored, are exclusively local, or contain passing quotations/comments on her work, all of which cannot demonstrate notability per the specific criteria notes. GuardianH (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep That IP Watchdog source cannot go to notability since it's an interview. However, I'd treat Colorado Public Radio as qualifying for notability under WP:GNG. (By the way, WP:NOTABILITY doesn't foreclose local news; WP:ACADEMIC does for purposes of criterion 7.) Speaking of criterion 7, other independent, secondary, reliable, substantial sources exist to document her public role on issues related to her academic research and thus notability: CBS News, CBC, Washington Post. There are other examples not as substantial as those, but I believe these should suffice. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! ill update the article with these sources to improve it! User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't suffice. For starters, the CBS News source explicitly tagged itself as "LOCAL NEWS" right at the very top of the headline, and this is for a good reason – local news articles such as these cannot demonstrate subject notability. I don't have a WaPo subscription, but just taking a look at the article, she seems to be mentioned only in passing — minor, supplementary mentions also don't prove notability.^[1]

The CBC does focus on Fiesler, but this article is an exception to the rule — the majority of independent, reliable sources do not focus their entire articles on her. Just because one does, does not mean all do; a lot more than just this one is needed to prove the widespread coverage necessary to establish notability. GuardianH (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ WP:ACADEMIC: A small number of quotations [...] is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. [elided as this isn't a local article].

Criterion 7 under NACADEMIC does not require the subject to be the primary focus of the article. That's a GNG requirement. Quote: "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." There is nothing there about how extensive the quotations need to be. And the WaPo item is not a mere passing quote:

Casey Fiesler, an information science professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said she did not want to downplay any potential menace, but it was possible that students who had noticed increased fear of school violence among their peers were hoping to get attention. TikTok has moderators and guidelines that prohibit posts promoting or threatening violence, but Fiesler said such rules could be circumvented by savvy users. And she noted that TikTok’s accessibility — its algorithm means posts from people with relatively small followings on the platform have a “much higher” chance of being widely circulated — allows for “content that would otherwise maybe not spread as much [to] go viral.” .... Fiesler, the Colorado professor, offered a hypothetical scenario of a student pulling a fire alarm to skip an exam. It could be “the same kind of thing, just at a much larger scale,” she said.

Other examples of "frequently quoted in conventional media" include: New York Times, Slate x2, Inside Higher Ed, Science, The Verge, SSIR, CNN, Fast Company, plus WaPo and CBC. All taken, these indicate that she is frequently cited by perennially reliable national and global media outlets as an expert in her academic field. (Meanwhile, CBC, Denver Post, and Colorado Public Radio go toward GNG notability (which, unlike NACADEMIC, counts local news coverage as long as it's significant coverage, reliable, secondary, and independent). But there are plenty of sources to keep this article under NACADEMIC Criterion 7.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

note: cbc is canada broadcasting company. her works have been in colorado and georgia. neither of these are local to canada. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ah, wait, you said CBS. that makes more sense. whoops. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company). It satisfies all criteria for GNG, and since it's not local news it also qualifies as coverage under NACADEMIC criterion 7. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in general the fact that multiple news sources showcase her work indicates notability, and as the main author, i consider the fact that i can writw three+ paragraphs with independent, reliable sources on nearly every sentence indicates notability.

as a professor her research career is still early stage, so her research output is not notable yet.

of note, about twelve hours before this, casey fiesler created a tiktok about this page indicating surprise that she had a page. this was before the deletion notice, so viewers do not know there is a deletion. however viewers may see this page.

her tiktok was her surprise at having a wikipedia article, but also her own experiences with nominations for deletion of her articles. she does not mention that her own article is up for deletion as she created the tiktok for her followers before this afd.

is there a process to correct the discussion and avoid any bias? ive seen it before on afd, when an article is proposed for deletion, in order to maintain balance. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that multiple news sources showcase her work indicates notability, and as the main author, i consider the fact that i can [write] three+ paragraphs with independent, reliable sources on nearly every sentence indicates notability. — Okay, first of all, not all news sources are made the same. WP:ACADEMIC and WP:NOTABILITY specify independent, reliable sources to prove significant coverage. The bulk of the articles here are, as I've pointed out, not independent, and they also happen to be local, which itself can't prove notability. GuardianH (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a scientist in the field of human-centered computing, I thought I would add some context from my field to this conversation, and I would be happy to contribute to the article as useful. I think there are several good reasons to select Dr. Fiesler. On criterion 1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline), I would like to observe that Dr Fiesler has received 12 awards in computer science for "Best Paper" or "best Paper Honorable Mention," and that she was also awarded the NSF CAREER award, which is a significant monetary award selected by peers in the field to support promising early career scholars. On criterion (7), Dr. Fiesler is a leading science communicator on human-centered computing, as evidenced by the fact that the U.S. White House invited her to attend the signing of the Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. Most importantly, under criterion 8 (editorship), Dr. Fiesler has served as the general chair of the CSCW conference— one of the two leading academic conferences in all of human-centered computing— a position that is equivalent (for computer science) of chief editor of a journal. Dr. Fiesler's CSCW co-chair that year, Dr. Loren Terveen, quite rightly, also has a Wikipedia page. Rubberpaw (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Few things to note. Notability on Wikipedia depends first and foremost on reliable sources. It would be better if you could provide a source for the 12 awards claim, a reliable source demonstrating the NSF Career award is significant enough to demonstrate it is a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level,^[1] and when you cited the White House visit, you provided Instagram, which is not a reliable source. Even so, a visit to the White House does not fit any part of the notability criteria laid out in WP:ACADEMIC.

As for her chairship, you also need a RS demonstrating that CSCW is one of the two leading academic conferences in all of human-centered computing. Digging reveals that she is a co-chair of one (Organizing Committee) of three committees – Organizing Committee, Program Committee, Steering Committee — rather than chair of the entire organization itself. GuardianH (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC) GuardianH (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these questions. I hope the following responses are informative.

The index for the 12 awards claim is Dr. Fiesler's CV on file with the University of Colorado, which I fact-checked by querying the conference proceedings for those cases. To cite three examples, here is the 2023 CSCW best paper honorable mention list that names the "Chilling Takes" article that Dr. Fiesler was lead author on. Here is the proceedings for the 2015 conference paper on understanding copyright in online creative communities that received a best paper award, as indicated by the award cup icon. Here is the best paper list from SIGCSE 2018, which also cites awards received by Fiesler's research.
NSF CAREER: According to this guide by the MIT Office of the Vice President for Research, "The CAREER program is a NSF-wide activity that provides 5 year awards to tenure-track Assistant Professors, and is one of the most popular and prestigious opportunities offered by the Foundation."
"Digging reveals that she is a co-chair of one (Organizing Committee) of three committees" - not all academic journals and conferences have a single head. This conference, which operates at a very high volume, has multiple heads, as is common in computer science, where there is a particularly high volume of scholarship. These are necessary conditions of such a high productivity, comparatively large field, with outsized influence in science.
"A visit to the White House does not fit any part of the notability criteria laid out in WP:ACADEMIC." In this case, I think it's notable because the White House was deliberately marking what they considered to be a first, historic step in the regulation of artificial intelligence in the US and internationally by inviting notable scientists, advocates, and policy experts.

Rubberpaw (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I disagree about the NSF Career award above being something that confers notability under WP:NPROF. It is a competitive grant that one applies for and not everyone gets, and also signifies that the grantee is poised to make significant contributions in their field. But the kinds of awards that confer notability under WP:PROF are not grant awards, and they are not "best paper" awards. They are the kinds of awards that people get nominated for by independent, distinguished organizations, without themselves applying for them. And generally, they are not going to be received by an assistant/associate professor - which is what makes this case a little difficult. Qflib (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPROF also does not consider early-career awards prestigious enough to count at all towards notability. The NSF Career grant and the paper awards thus do not contribute at all to this discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ WP:NACADEMIC

Comment: I've added additional sources to the article. I am not sure which ones are the best for indicating independence. However, apparently Casey Fiesler maintains a press page. https://caseyfiesler.com/press/

Of note, the first category, "OpEds and Popular Press Articles", probably cannot be used. these are self-written and are not independent.

However, Research Coverage, Press Mentions & Quotes, and others seem interesting and worth including. I don't want to overload the page with citations, but I feel we can pick a few that are appropriate to give additional detail and verification as necessary. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also gone and removed the self-sourced article, and replaced it with what I hope is an appropriate source. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Law, Technology, Computing, Internet, Georgia (U.S. state), and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick rummage through the sources in the article and above plus a Google News search suggest to me that a) there's enough material to form a functional short article about her, and b) some people are going to say, "Who is this Casey Fiesler?" and turn to us for a trusted answer. Additionally, and I hope this is just coincidence, I think it's a very bad look for Wikipedia when somebody records a popular video about quitting Wikipedia due to retaliatory deletions from a disgruntled editor and then suddenly their Wikipedia article is up for deletion. William Pietri (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For sake of transparency, and to avoid any issues, I've attached the canvassing template on here.

The TikTok by Fiesler might have caused some folks to show up.

I definitely agree that we should keep this article and I welcome folks' input, but Wikipedia rules are rules, just in case. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sigh, is there a better template? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ah found one. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with the nomination claim that the subject is far from WP:PROF notability. Her citation counts on Google Scholar (both the many triple-digit-citation works and the strong upward trajectory on her annual citations) look good enough for #C1 to me. And I think there's significant independent coverage of her work with Barbie on CPR [55] and on her studies of social media in the Denver Post [56], enough to make a plausible case for WP:GNG notability (as well as maybe PROF#C7) as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a good case for passing WP:PROF#C1 and also WP:PROF#C7, as argued just above. XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet WP:PROF#C1 (scholarly impact), WP:PROF#C2 (NSF CAREER award) and WP:PROF#C7 (infuential as a public scholar). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Generally, associate professors have not achieved the level of career notability that one looks for in deciding whether it's time for a Wikipedia page about them. That's the "weak" part of my thinking. Like David and XOReaster, I do see that the citation record is meeting WP:PROF#C1. In addition, like David I think WP:GNG and/or WP:PROF#C1 are met by the news coverage. Qflib (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t “bite the newbie” but if an article for deletion and the story of her making a tiktok being surprised about having a Wikipedia page manages to make the main stream media or highly viewed on tiktok could that in it of itself be controversial enough to warrant a Wikipedia page? My great grandpa was a 1 star army general and his a Wikipedia but he didn’t do much and they don’t delete him, in fact all he only appears on Google as his Wikipedia page and list of ww1 veterans - anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.11.80 (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has it made the mainstream media? In general we usually want more than one different mainstream media story about a person (each with in-depth coverage of the person) to generate notability that way; see WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. But that's all hypothetical; in this case I think there are much better rationales for notability than any recent controversy. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If I look at the original when the AfD nomination was made, that was certainly questionable. However, there have been enough additions and improvements that I think the current version qualifies as proof of notability. (There may even be a bit more that people in her field might add.) Ldm1954 (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:PROF#C7 (a) per the sources provided by Dclemens1971. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and lesser because of WP:PROF#C1. I know it can sometimes chafe when someone gets media coverage partially because they're mad at Wikipedia, but coverage is coverage and Wikipedia should, in my opinion only, try harder to make articles better (as happened in this case) when people think they might be borderline AfD-worthy and not just jump in to looking to remove them. I feel that Wikipedia can often use the AfD process as a punishment of sorts when we have thousands of one-sentence stubs which seem to be okay. Wikipedia has such a huge gender disparity in terms of who is represented in biographies and who is writing those biographies. We can do better. Jessamyn (my talk page) 17:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't often weigh in, but CSCW, a conference organized by the ACM (Association of Computing Machinery), is one of the premier conferences for human-computer interaction. I know that every conference feels that it is the premier conference in its field, but this actually is. And the work she did with "Computer Engineer Barbie" was actually discussed in my "Gender & Computing" course last week, as we looked at the bias the doll incorporates. --WiseWoman (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject passes WP:BIO and WP:PROF#C7. I'd also like to echo Jessamyn's comments; I came to the article after seeing Fiesler's TikTok about her experience with Wikipedia, and was a little dismayed to see it had already been sent to AfD. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ZimZalaBim's summary of her WP:PROF criteria passes are sound (C7 is especially strong). And thanks to @Ldm1954 for pointing out the differences in the article from when AfD began and where it is today. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 11:05, 16 April 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 speedy delete‎. WP:A7 and WP:G12 by User:Deb (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Living God – Jewell Dominion

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

No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mary Magdalena Lewis Tate or Sacred Steel (musical tradition). The extremely limited RS that relate to the Jewell Dominion primarily cover either Tate or the steel guitar musical tradition that grew out of her church(es). Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect per above. At any rate the article as it stands is essentially unusable, to the point where I have to wonder if it was copied from a church source. Mangoe (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Earwig's Copyvio Detector finds 96% similarity with this: https://cotlghqindy.org/our-past-leaders/ Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Alabama, Georgia (U.S. state), and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as G12. The idea that a church would copy Wikipedia is not plausible. The idea that someone well-meaning would violate copyright in such a manner is. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... and it's gone. Suggest we close this as both G12 and consensus that it wasn't usable as it stood regardless. Jclemens (talk) 08:10, 11 April 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. This seems like a rare instance of an article subject whose article has been deleted multiple times, now being seen as notable. I'll remove the "salt" tag since I see a consensus now to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autostrad (band)

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

Salt evasion of Autostrad. Sources largely do not contain significant coverage of the band. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:45, 10 April 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 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Jordan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and rename to Autostrad). The prior AfD in 2012 was for an article that was apparently entirely unreferenced. Today's article is not, and since 2012, Autostrad has played internationally and received the following significant coverage:

Garratt, Rob (2017-04-05). "How Autostrad became the indie ambassadors of Jordanian culture and music". The National. Retrieved 2024-04-11.
"Autostrad indie band members express 'their humanity' through music". Jordan Times. 2015-03-03. Retrieved 2024-04-11.
Saeed, Saeed (2018-02-01). "Wasla music festival: Autostrad explain the Jordanian music ethos". The National. Retrieved 2024-04-11.
Nabawi, Maha El (2018-05-17). "How Jordanian musicians are finding success with new genres made in the Middle East". The National. Retrieved 2024-04-11.

There are presumably additional sources available in Arabic -- in fact the article cites some. Jfire (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep due to new sources since 12 years ago. Not sure why a speedy deletion tag was added in addition to this discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Articles about this band were deleted or speedy deleted several times from 2009 to 2015 because less-experienced editors did not find reliable sources and did little more than announce that the band existed. However, the article's history since 2015 shows that it has been developed by several more experienced editors. The current version needs some cleanup (several sources are dead) and expansion of the band's history. Note that the band's Arabic WP article [57] has some more sources, and those located by the previous voter will also help. My vote is "weak keep" because they haven't gotten too far beyond tour announcements in the media, but there may be enough for a stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:59, 11 April 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.

[1] WP:ACADEMIC: A small number of quotations [...] is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. [elided as this isn't a local article].

[2] WP:NACADEMIC

[1]

[1]

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karayel (horse)}} -->
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Hereford}} -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karin Vogel}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karin Vogel}} -->
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filmfare Award Bangla for Best Supporting Actress}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Greaves-Neal}}