Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 15: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:51, 22 April 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 14	April 16 >

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 redirect‎ to List of Karachi Kings cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Ameer

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

This guy fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. A search seems to only one article with his name in it and it only covers him tangentially. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Cricket. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete samee converse 01:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found several references using this search by focusing my search on Dawn.com, a leading English-language newspaper in Pakistan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources here seem to all be tangential coverage of him playing for his team. The first hit isn't even of Abdul Ameer but of a M. Abdul Ameer who seems to be unrelated. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too poor to stay on Wikipedia, not much to salvage around here. Acartonadooopo (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Acartonadooopo, it's the English Wikipedia's rule that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. It doesn't matter whether the current version of the article is "too poor to stay on Wikipedia", because the question here at AFD is whether the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Karachi Kings cricketers Not sure I'm seeing enough in a search to suggest a WP:GNG pass, however there could well be offline coverage. Suitable redirect per WP:ATD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugbyfan22 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 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!} 23:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources likely to exist in Pakistan; taking 100 first-class wickets is no mean feat. AA (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Sources likely to exist" is a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:32, 30 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) 02:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, zero SIGCOV to be found and no evidence that anything exists offline. JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing found or presented which meets SIGCOV. This is a BLP. Subject has received bare mentions from a single source. Everything else is unsupported assertion and a stats database. BusterD (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Karachi Kings cricketers BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found in article or in BEFORE which meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, name mentions, nothing meeting SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 14:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Karachi Kings cricketers: Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 11 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 The Pietasters , which I assume is the target participants had in mind when proposing this as an ATD. Owen× ☎ 16:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Mix Tape vol. 6

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

Can't find any mention of this album anywhere. Additionally posted my concerns to the talk page in an attempt to get sources added so I'm assuming WP:GNG fails. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this blurb and this review, the latter after just searching for Awesome Mix Tape. A few sources (likely unreliable zines but might be worth checking) used Awesome Mix Tape #6 or just Awesome Mix Tape 6 instead, so it's probably worth a deeper search with that in mind. A lot of 1980s/'90s punk albums like this one slipped under the radar for major publications, but that doesn't mean there's nothing out there for them. And I wouldn't rely too much on article talk pages for seeking out sources for something since the only editors who will see that are those who have the page on their watchlists, which could be nobody. Fortunately, AfDs are made to get a lot more eyes. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep, at minimum redirect. Reviewed in Melody Maker, Daily Herald, Regina Leader-Post, The Morning Call, The Press of Atlantic City (surprisingly long), The Indianapolis Star, The San Diego Union-Tribune. Don't have full access to everything, but many of the other hits seem to be mentions in show previews/show reviews. Caro7200 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree on a redirect here. Is there a way you could provide links to the sources here? If these sources have good WP:DEPTH I would be more than willing to change my mind. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:47, 17 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!} 23:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Okay, apparently it exists, but nothing in this article indicates any notability whatsoever. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:30, 7 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 Colin Meloy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Cactus

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

Unreferenced article since 2005, the founding member went on to form another notable band so I'd suggest redirecting this article to Colin Meloy and adding an extra sentence about this earlier band on his page. InDimensional (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and Montana. InDimensional (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. This band has never been the subject of coverage on its own, only in the context of what other members have done (mostly Melroy, also the two Caseys) Mach61 12:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom - Not notable on its own. There is a mention of the band under Musical career.

Tbennert (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Colin Meloy as non-notable fancruft trivia about the high school shenanigans of someone who became notable much later. I would have recommended total deletion, but the name is probably a viable search term for Meloy's fans. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Colin Meloy as not enough coverage for a standalone article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the band itself is not notable and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Contributor892z (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested and as done usually; see WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mabrouk

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Basically a routine resume/CV. No independent sources discus him much less be of GNG type. The only real discussion of him is the bio by his employer. North8000 (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Jordan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines with zero RSes. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 15:38, 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 merge‎ to David Weinberger. Daniel (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Small Pieces Loosely Joined

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

No significant coverage indicating specific notability. Could just be a mention in David Weinberger's article. ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - This book seems to meet WP:NBOOK per these two reviews I found on Google Scholar 1 (PDF) 2. Also, the phrase "Small pieces loosely joined" seems to have quite a bit of currency even within the citing articles [1]. Psychastes (talk) 07:31, 17 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!} 23:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is fine. There's room in David Weinberger for it, and if anyone wants to expand it they can spin it back out. -- asilvering (talk) 03:00, 29 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 merge‎ to Matroska. Having had that AfD closed as 'keep', this is now a viable close and is supported by consensus. Daniel (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia Container Format

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

Abandoned software project. Zero independent sources, nobody cares: tagged since 2022 - Altenmann >talk 20:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Owen× ☎ 23:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into Matroska. Streamline8988 (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is also nominated for deletion. But maybe together they will survive. the WP:RS scrutiny. - Altenmann >talk 07:22, 16 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!} 23:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into Matroska. Absolutely no chance of this having any reason being kept. An unreferenced crummy article. X (talk) 19:12, 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!} 07:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Rizzelli

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The most I found were transactional announcements (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Italy, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - professional rugby league footballer who played in the Super League. 6 sources.Fleets (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He barely played, and several of the sources are statistical in nature, and some are not about him but about matches. I advise you to read WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One top tier appearances three years ago, no sign of taking career any further. Mn1548 (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Making one professional appearance is no longer enough to satisfy NSPORT. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:24, 9 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, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sourcing to demonstrate the subject meets GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 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 redirect‎ to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Maree

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Lebanon, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rugby League footballer who played for Lebanon at the Rugby League World. 8 sources.Fleets (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the sources has to be addressed. Geschichte (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads is an WP:ATD. On that page, one will find his club and cap count at the time (I don't know why rugby doesn't put DoB as well, like football squads). @JTtheOG, note that several other of the Lebanese 2021 World Cup pages are of the exact same build as Josh Maree. Geschichte (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Played in a team that got to a WC QF, nothing is written about his club career, needs expansion. Mn1548 (talk) 16:39, 9 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!} 20:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. No evidence of the requisite GNG coverage, merely playing in some league does not meet any notability criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:21, 23 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) 06:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads. No standalone notability and no established first grade career. LibStar (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Participation-based athlete criteria, which both keep !votes are based on, were deprecated 2 years ago. JTtheOG (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. There is no consensus to delete the article. There is however, a strong current suggesting that it should be substantially altered in some manner, whether that is renamed, or broadened in scope. Those discussions can occur on the talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gold phosphide

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

No reliable evidence for existence, while not notable. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 20:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 20:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might be a bit hasty.

A lack of evidence for existence is not evidence that something does not exist.

If you want to claim that AuP^[1] it isn't a real thing, you really need to cite contemporary work. The citations in the extant article are a wee bit long in the tooth. While the historic claim may have some interesting tidbits someone might dig up, it really is more the fact that there really is such as thing as gold phosphide (even if not AuP, but rather Au₂P₃^[2]^[3]^[4]). So the page has some definite need since they are spelled the same, even if they are different things.

Per one site "Gold Phosphide is a used in high power, high frequency applications and in laser diodes." ^[5]

I don't have access to the chemistry literature that this page would require. There isn't anything in PubMed, which includes a lot of primary chemistry literature as well. So it is pretty obscure, but that doesn't mean we cannot make room for it in our hearts, esp. if it plays some important role, e.g. in high power/high frequency laser diodes.

I would suggest making it a chemistry stub/draft and seeing anyone in the chemistry club wants to adopt it.

The PubChem CID 19094837 is not at all convincing. Just as a lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, having an unambiguous identifier for something doesn't mean its real either. The two SIDs 56368501, 162106709 are probably for something real (even if they are the worst entries ever in the history of PubChem). 2601:447:CD7E:7CF0:0:0:0:56AE (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC) (This is User:DrKC MD editing logged out. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)}[reply]

American Elements is NOT a reliable source WP:VENDOR, due to their commercial interest. All the information we can find about it is in archaic literature, when concrete characterization such as X-ray diffraction or even Raman spectroscopy had been developed. I change my stance to rename to gold phosphides to broaden the scope to other actually characterized gold phosphides like Au₂P₃.^[6] Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/19094837
^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022459616302675
^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/56368501
^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/162106709
^ https://www.americanelements.com/gold-phosphide
^ R. Prins; M. E. Bussell (2012). "Metal Phosphides: Preparation, Characterization and Catalytic Reactivity". Catalysis Letters. 142 (12): 1413–1436. doi:10.1007/s10562-012-0929-7.

Keep Hypothetical compounds can be notable (Xenon octafluoride, Nitrogen pentafluoride, ...), and while the sourcing here is not of the first water, it seems easily sufficient to demonstrate minimum required coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG see [2] [3] [4] -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this deletion discussion about something called Gold phosphide or about something with the formula AuP? Most of the hits for the former are for Au₂P₃, and people commenting here have interpreted things in different ways. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is supposed be something with the formula AuP. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:17, 13 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!} 20:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the problem, the sources cited all seem to be talking about different things. References 4 and 5 flatly contradict each other (one says gray solid, one says black with metallic appearance). Hypothetical compounds can be notable but we would have to make the article about a specific compound and be sure our sources reflect that. Since I'm not sure we can do that, I would support a rename to gold phosphides and rewriting of the article; failing that, delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)

Rename to gold phosphides per previous "keep" and "rename" arguments. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 16:08, 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Powerpuff Girls (disambiguation)

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

It's a page that lists everything in the Powerpuff Girls franchise, which already exists through The Powerpuff Girls (franchise). kpgamingz (rant me) 16:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~It seems this should be kept due to Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Industrial Insect (talk)~~ 18:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not ambiguous enough for a disambiguation page. It's only for a single topic/franchise. kpgamingz (rant me) 21:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Disambiguations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove everything except the franchise page and The Powerpuff Girls (2016 TV series), due to WP:PTM. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kpgamingz (rant me) 20:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Add link to franchise page to the top of the TV series page. Having disambiguation for this is excessive and unnecessary: They ALL relate to the same franchise. WikiMane11 (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cleaned it up. There are 5 relevant links to similar named articles, there is no delete here. Desertarun (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please review changes made to disambiguation page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Powerpuff Girls (franchise), which features all of these things sufficiently. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Disambiguation pages are for listing unrelated topics. All of these are related to each other and hence this is not a valid dab. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, precisely per Pppery. Leaving a redirect at this title would falsely imply that there are multiple unrelated topics sharing the name. BD2412 T 02:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and since the target is not a disambiguation per se. Seems confusing and misleading for readers to leave this as a redirect. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Powerpuff Girls (franchise): Information is in infobox. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:05, 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. ✗plicit 05:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koimoi

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. First AfD resulted in no consensus with the second resulting in keep. Low participation in both. Cannot find sources to support notability. CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This website states that "Koimoi.com is India’s #2 Digital Bollywood Portal with over 5 million users a month visiting its Web and Mobile sites." (which is not a claim they took from Koimoi's About, apparently). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article lacks substantial evidence of notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines WP:GNG, with no independent secondary reliable sources cited. Additionally, the website itself is deemed unreliable under WP:ICTFSOURCES. The first cited link is blog website not a reliable source at all. Grabup (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The relevant guideline here would be WP:NCORP, right? I don't think we've got any hope of that if no one's been able to make a solid keep vote through all of these AfDs. I went looking through google scholar/books and found a lot of glancing hits (eg, "Koimoi lists both Bollywood and Hollywood movies"), but nothing substantial. -- asilvering (talk) 05:35, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beam Invader

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

Lack of notability, I was unable to find any reliable sources indicating notability. DePRODded with the rationale that the article could be merged or redirected to something, I don't think there's any suitable redirect target as there are many Space Invaders clones and I don't think a non-notable one is suitable to mention on the article for Space Invaders. Waxworker (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Space Invaders video games as preferred WP:ATD. Sorry, I included the wrong link in my deprod comment. ~Kvng (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having previously worked on getting both Space Invaders and List of Space Invaders video games to featured status, I can say that I did not come across this game in my research. To be fair, I wasn't searching for specific clones, but I would imagine that even a passing mention would have popped up if it was a little notable. As the list is intended only for official Space Invaders games, I don't think merging a clone into the list would be the right move. We'd still have to prove notability for inclusion because there were many clones and we can't make a unsourced catalog of clone games. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: From jp-wiki and elsewhere, company appears to have also been written "Technon/Teknon" & "Kogyu" or "テクノンコウギョウ" or "テクノン工業". Game also written "ビーム・インベーダー". It is mentioned at [5] & [6], but those are both recent. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could also fall under WP:NOTINHERITED, and it's not worthy of merging with Space Invaders either. When I worked on Space Harrier many years ago I learned about multiple clones of the game that were produced, and none of them stood on their own merits. The same applies in this instance. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 20:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 06:32, 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. There is a weak consensus to Delete along with the sentiment that there might be notability that can be established at a future date. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Prabhudoss

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

Non-notable activist and political candidate. Of the 5 sources cited on the page, 1 is his organization's own website and 3 are news articles that only mention him in passing. The Christian Post article is the only one that goes in-depth on him, and Christian Post is not exactly a high-profile news outlet. I've looked on Google and can't find anything much better. It seems like his only claim to notability is leading the Federation of Indian American Christian Organizations, an organization that doesn't even have a Wikipedia page of its own. I don't see how he passes WP:GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Christianity, and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as The Christian Post is most definitely a major news outlet capable of conferring notability through SIGCOV. Since the primary hasn't happened yet, notability might be contingent on a future event (WP:CRYSTAL). As such, I don't feel comfortable putting in an !vote. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit the Christian Post is more high-profile than I realized, but it's still a niche online publication. Also, that's not how it works--the goal of this discussion is to determine whether Prabhudoss meets the notability requirements right now. And even if he did win the Republican primary, being the Republican nominee for a U.S. House seat wouldn't automatically make him notable. See WP:NPOL BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem confused: I just said that I'm unwilling to !vote because of the reasons you repeated. Also, The Christian Post is not a niche publication. It's on roughly the same level as the Chicago Tribune in terms of establishing notability (speaking of which, here's a passing mention). Right now, I'm most inclined to !vote towards deletion. I want to see if anyone finds something else first, though. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete this feels like a hard choice to make. Mr. Prabhudoss is notable enough to be mentioned in publications going back 20+ years as shown above. The article however, is severely lacking in additional sources. Three sections have none at all. I did find this article from India Today from last Summer where he was mentioned. And here from Al Jazzera briefly. So I can see an argument for why he should have an article. He's a notable enough person that reputable publications want or will publish his input on a specific matter. I can also see the argument for why he shouldn't have an article because he's not a notable person in the general sphere. As of now I'm leaning towards a weak delete. The issue Mr. Prabhudoss advocates for is a niche one. Yes reputable publications have quoted him when they do cover that specific topic. But that doesn't entirely make someone notable enough for their own article. And when he is quoted it's usually on behalf of the organization he represented. Which I do believe is notable enough to have it's own article. FIACONA is covered far more extensively than Mr. Prabhudoss has been. I am willing to change my vote if someone is able to convince me though. Or he could end up winning his election making all this irrelevant.-ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources are covering his organisation, not him specifically as an individual. It's likely his organisation would meet notability requirements, but having a BLP instead isn't helpful, especially given whole sections of this article are completely unsourced. AusLondonder (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. The sources barely cover the organization of which he is part, and more the issues he espouses. That is not enough for WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 16:58, 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 delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtami (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary dab page per WP:ONEOTHER. Should be replaced with a hatnote added to the main article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote Disambiguation page not required at this time. Sohom (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not needed. I have added the necessary hatnote at Ashtami - where there wasn't previously a hatnote pointing to this dab page, apparently created by an inexperienced editor who doesn't understand how dab pages and navigation work. PamD 08:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unnecessary dab; hatnotes should be set up instead. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 15:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Also note this SPI that was filed and waiting CU. At this point it is becoming disruptive. I moved the page back to draft and reasoning can be found in the SPI. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:42, 21 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!} 23:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests

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

WP:CFORK of Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent, I'm unable to find any RS that describe "Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests" as a historical period in itself. Cited sources in the page do not appear to use this framing. Searching on Google Scholar for the page title, and also "Rajput resistance" "Muslim conquests" did not turn up anything useful. Searching Google Books turned up only a handful of results that weren't false positives, and none of them bode well for this topic: Serving Empire, Serving nation pg 185-190 discuss revisionist nationalist histories that attempt to construct a narrative of resistance to Muslim conquests through reinterpretation of folklore and historical events, but does not adopt or endorse this historiographic framing. Royal Umbrellas of Stone talks about Rajput resistance, but predominantly uses the term to discuss social movements and rebellions against established Mughal rule, not against the initial conquests. The only source that I can find that uncritically adopts the framing of "Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests" is...The Abortion Explosion: Woman Weapon of Mass Destruction #1, which appears to be a polemic against abortion and not a reliable source of any kind, let alone Indian history in particular. This could potentially be a redirect to Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent, but given that Rajput kingdoms also sometimes formed alliances with Muslim polities (see Rajput Mughal marriage alliances; n.b. this aspect is totally absent from the Rajput resistance article), deletion may also be appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Rosguill what is it you think this is a fork of? Mccapra (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Special:Diff/1219105445, it's a fork of Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent. Also note that this article was created evading a salt on Rajput resistance, and this has also been deleted several times as Rajput resistance to Muslim invasions. I suspect that Machwedge is a sock of the same master found in the deleted history there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thank you, I deserve a trout for missing that error. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt (again). This isn't just a content fork, it's an obvious POV-fork. No neutral article can possibly be made for this title. -- asilvering (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I agree it's a fork that was recreated by evading a previous salt. Aintabli (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:FORK. Everything is already included that is needed. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 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 redirect‎ to List of Boland representative cricketers. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Rushmere

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

Redirect to List of Boland representative cricketers. Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Looks like he is the son of Mark Rushmere (1), but I can't find any WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just be WP:BOLD and redirect, these AfD's are tedious and improper where there will be no contention. AA (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Boland representative cricketers Looks to fail WP:GNG. Suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:46, 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 redirect‎ to List of Boland representative cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Edmeades

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Seems like he played for two provincial sides, so I'm not sure which redirect list would be ideal. JTtheOG (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Boland representative cricketers Looks to fail WP:GNG although there are some reports. Played the majority of his games for Boland, so suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:47, 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 redirect‎ to List of Western Province representative cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Myolisi Fumba

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

Redirect to List of Western Province representative cricketers. Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Western Province representative cricketers Looks to fail WP:GNG. Suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:48, 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 redirect‎ to List of Western Province representative cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Adrianatos

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

Redirect to List of Western Province representative cricketers. Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Western Province representative cricketers Looks to fail WP:GNG. Suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:48, 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 redirect‎ to List of South Western Districts representative cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Esau

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

Redirect to List of South Western Districts representative cricketers. Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of South Western Districts representative cricketers Looks to fail WP:GNG. Suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 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. ✗plicit 04:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Brochon

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. It's possible I missed something, as Google had a good amount of hits, but really all that came up were interviews (1, 2) and post-match quotes (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional footballer who made his Super League debut in 2018, and has made dozens of appearances for another professional club in France.Fleets (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fleets, this !vote rationale is invalid, as participation-based athlete criteria were deprecated 2 years ago and the existing requirement that athletes meet GNG was strengthened to require at least one SIGCOV IRS source be cited in the article from the start. JoelleJay (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Per JT, news items would be the very least to qualify as RSs. Tony (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is routine or primary/nonindependent in addition to being trivial. JoelleJay (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided: Played for Catalans and Toulouse and there should be more written about him. Should be expanded, but currently not sufficient coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 16:29, 22 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!} 23:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:31, 30 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) 06:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AmericaSpeaks

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

Article with a promotional history; this version started out simply as a copy of a promotional version deleted as spam, and it hasn't gotten any better. There's no proof or even indication that this was ever a notable organization by our standards, and the lack of references reflects that. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A closed org with no significant coverage in a long time. Clear failure of WP:10YT Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and 10YT. By the way, a related AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/California_Speaks Graywalls (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since its closure in 2014, there has not been a single reliable source covering the organization. It fails WP:NCORP's inclusion criteria. Nitish shetty (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant standard is WP:ORG as it was a nonprofit, and there are many reliable sources covering the organization since its closure in 2014 cited within the article per my comments below. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. and others. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Sal2100 (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sal2100: Request reconsideration in light of the below. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See below, !vote changed to "keep". Thanks for pinging me. Sal2100 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:ORG and WP:HEY. The article about this nonpartisan non-profit organization has now gone through a complete WP:TNT, with all the promotional, unsourced content removed. (Drmies and Graywalls rightly got the ball rolling with removing content that should have been removed years ago.) There are numerous articles covering AmericaSpeaks in independent, reliable secondary sources including academic journal articles and books, demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED interest over time. Among the most in-depth analysis is Francesca Polletta's chapter, "Publics, Partners, and the Ties That Bind" which appeared in Inventing Ties That Bind, a book published by the University of Chicago Press in 2020 and published by Chicago Scholarship Online in 2021. Another article is "Balancing the Books: Analyzing the Impact of a Federal Budget Deliberative Simulation on Student Learning and Opinion" by Dena Levy and Susan Orr, which was published in the Journal of Political Science Education in 2014. Another is the chapter "A Political Life Transformed" by John Gastil and Katherine R. Knobloch, which appeared in their book Hope for Democracy: How Citizens Can Bring Reason Back Into Politics, which was published by Oxford University Press in 2020. (All articles are accessible via Wikipedia Library or its partner publishers.) There are many other sources now cited in the article besides. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cielquiparle and WP:HEY. With recent modifications, the article now passes WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although at the time of the nom it didn't look very promising but rn I can vouch for it to be kept. X (talk) 18:41, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1974 Wills Cup

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

A single match pre season cup doesn't need its own page. Mn1548 (talk) 18:22, 15 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby league, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't have the WP:SUSTAINED coverage to warrant inclusion as a standalone match. Contents are mentioned at 1974 Eastern Suburbs season Geschichte (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to a redirect to 1974 Eastern Suburbs season per Gsch. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 15:43, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Moore (bluegrass musician)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has no sources and no indication of notability. It was nominated for deletion nearly 20 years ago and has not been improved since it was created in 2005. The subject does not meet any of the guidelines listed in WP:NMUSIC nor WP:NBIO.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aneirinn (talk • contribs) 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aneirinn (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is important to note that the WP:NMUSICIAN requirements have gotten much tougher since 2006, when this article survived an AfD discussion pretty much because the gentleman was visible on the Internet. Meanwhile, the current version of the article could possibly be speedy deleted under WP:A7 because it makes no attempt to say how/if he is notable. At any rate, the gentleman is a perennial sideman and local performer who is surely good at what he does, but he has not received the in-depth media coverage that is necessary here, and is only visible in typical streaming and promotional services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Byron Berline~~: I searched but could not find in-depth coverage about Moore. It's not an easy search because of his name and he's played at many bluegrass festivals so a lot hot hits to wade through but I did add a couple sources at least for verification. He was in Berline's band California which won International Bluegrass Music Association Instrumental Group of the Year three years in a row and Moore is mentioned in article. He also taught mandolin to Nickel Creek's Chris Thile and Sean Watkins which might qualify for WP:NMUSICOTHER #3 or #5 but I think that's a weak claim. S0091 (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments below. S0091 (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I voted to delete above, but if this keeps getting relisted with no further progress then we will probably end up with a pointless "no consensus". Therefore I would support the Redirect suggestion above if nobody else votes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. S0091 has made a valiant effort but I don't think this is a good redirect. If you searched for John Moore and were redirected to this article, I think you'd feel more confused than informed. (Sorry, Doomsdayer520, but I think even "no consensus" would be better than this confusing redirect.) -- asilvering (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first choice is still Delete and will I stick with it now that I have some support. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No backsies @Doomsdayer520. :) Actually, I agree with @Asilvering it's not a great redirect as there is no content to preserve in the event sources become available and a weak target so flipping my vote to delete. S0091 (talk) 18:02, 29 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. It appears the nominator now also agrees the given sources are enough to support notability. Whether a Baltimorean with an interest in choir will expand the article or not is unfortunately beyond the remit of AfD. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Choral Arts Society

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

No refs on the page for many years. I see some mentions and directories and possibly even programmes for performances, but I'm not seeing the level of substantial independent reliable sourcing needed to meet the inclusion criteria on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Maryland. JMWt (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of WP:SIGCOV [7] - article needs work but that's not grounds for deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok great, please add the strongest sources to the page that show the notability criteria have been met. JMWt (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about you do it instead. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The news sources you've provided are mostly not accessible to me in my country. But you are right that these appear to be SIGCOV looking at the titles of the news articles, but it is a shame nobody has improved it since 2009. JMWt (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't have a subscription to Baltimore newspapers. This is neither here nor there for whether the article should be deleted. Hopefully an editor from Baltimore will see this conversation and do it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:39, 15 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) 18:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see enough independent reviews to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:02, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Garh Tehsil

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

Reviewed during NPP. I think two reasons for the nomination. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. SNG would be the only possibility and not even the requirements for that are met. More simply, the only reference give does not even mention it and in a search I can't find anything to even confirm that it even exists, not even on Google maps. North8000 (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The place exist. See Khangarh, Sindh, this and this--—Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those (sourceless pages in the Wayback machine) are for Khangarh which already has a Wikipedia article. Khangarh, Sindh North8000 (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Garh and Khangarh are same. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Thanks. So I think that that reinforces that it already has an article? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Saqib. Mccapra (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Those are for Khangarh which already has a Wikipedia article. Khangarh, Sindh North8000 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but the city and the tehsil are two different things. Mccapra (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: ??? I don't understand. Saqib gave sources for Khangarh and said that it's the same thing as this AFD. You said keep based on those sources, but when I said Khangarh already has an article you said that this AFD article is not the same thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib’s sources verify that Khangarh/Khan Garh is a local government area (tehsil). As a local government area any tehsil is notable. Tehsils may or may not be approximately similar to towns, and the fact that we already have an article on the town doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also have an article on the tehsil. Is what I meant. Mccapra (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has only one reference which is dead but is archived at the wayback machine. And what's at the wayback machine does not even mention the topic. That said, I'm going to step back and let others decide. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason that we have articles on Schenectady County, New York and Schenectady, New York. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether or not a Tehsil is suitable to have an article. The question is: do we have a suitable source that says that the TEHSIL of Khan Garh exists? North8000 (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[8] [9] [10] and [11] all easily available from Ghotki District show that Khan Garh or Khangarh is a verifiable tehsil/taluka. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger. Local government units at the Tehsil level are routinely kept on Wikipedia even in the absence of GNG level sourcing. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More policy-based discussion is needed. Just because something exists, does not make it notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To simplify, I'd agree (and already agreed) that a Tehsil meets NGeo should be kept without needing GNG sources. I looked at all of the sources noted, and from what I can see none of them is a wiki-suitable confirms that the TEHSIL of Khan Garh exists. The only reference in the article is to a sources list in the wayback machine which seems to say it doesn't exist. Others are ambiguous, don't say that it is a Tehsil, and seem to be referring to Khangarh, Sindh . Others are to blank sourceless pages in the wayback machine (including the only two cites at the Ghotki District article and even those don't really say that it exists. Can somebody find ONE wp:RS that clearly says that it exists as a Tehsil? And maybe even put it in the article because the article currently the article has ZERO wp:RS sources, and even the one non-RS source that it has (a sourceless page in the wayback machine) doesn't even claim that it exists. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to being deliberately obtuse here, as Eluchil404 in his reply to you above listed sources (I checked the first and the third, which is enough) that confirm that this is a tehsil. If you didn't know that a taluka is the same as a tehsil then just look in your favourite encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please quit the "deliberately" crap. Beyond that, I've done my best here. I'm going to unwatch this and let y'all decide. Anybody please ping me if I may be of assistance. North8000 (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per Phil Bridger. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Replaced the existing archived reference that did not mention Khan Garh Tehsil with an archived reference from a Government of Pakistan website that clearly mentions it (page 18 of 38 - Khangarh Taluka). Also added a Dawn newspaper reference mentioning 'Khangarh taluka'...Ngrewal1 (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work and a huge change. That makes it Keep for me. North8000 (talk) 12:54, 24 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 Eritrea national football team#Coaching history. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Ahmed Hussein

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

Very little is known about this football coach. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Mentioning the name in a list of managers, with a good source, is therefore enough. Geschichte (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is already the template at the bottom of the page of Eritrea national football team managers with a list: Template:Eritrea national football team managers.

Alexysun (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eritrea national football team#Coaching history - not notable but likely search term. Giant Snowman 18:34, 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. G3 deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European Football Coach of the Year

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

This article is a mystification of a Ukrainian Wikipedia user who was blocked for creating fake articles about football. There are no authoritative sources about such an award from UEPS and AEJ. Mitte27 (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Awards, Football, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax (G3). Giant Snowman 18:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G3 Govvy (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After deleting an article, you must also delete Template:European Coach of the Year created based on fake information. --Mitte27 (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is also necessary to pay attention to similar cases of hoaxes based on Volodymyr VB materials: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Football Coach of the Season, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UPI World Soccer Player of the Year Award, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIFA 70th anniversary retrospective awards. --Mitte27 (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – WP:G3. Svartner (talk) 07:42, 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 speedy delete‎. G3 deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European Football Coach of the Season

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

This article is a mystification of a Ukrainian Wikipedia user who was blocked for creating fake articles about football. There are no authoritative sources about such an award from UEPS and AEJ. Mitte27 (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Awards, Football, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax (G3). Giant Snowman 18:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G3 Shouldn't have gone to AfD. Govvy (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is also necessary to pay attention to similar cases of hoaxes based on Volodymyr VB materials: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Football Coach of the Year, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UPI World Soccer Player of the Year Award, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIFA 70th anniversary retrospective awards. --Mitte27 (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – WP:G3. Svartner (talk) 07:43, 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 merge‎ to Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). The keep votes have presented no reliable sources indicaticating notability and there is consensus that this is a subtopic that ought to be covered in the main article rather than forked. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radical pro-Beijing camp

AfDs for this article:

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

Blatant content fork of Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). The sources that do exist, almost all of which are media sources rather than academic, mostly provide the WP:SKYBLUE statement that some members of the pro-Beijing camp hold more radical politics than others. The sources do not support that this is a distinct political formation from the pro-Beijing camp. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment: my apologies for the linking issues which I've tried to fix. I think I may have had a slip-up with the capitalization of "camp" in one instance somewhere" Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't fork of Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) when editing the Radical pro-Beijing camp article; I fork of the "激進建制派" article in the Chinese Wikipedia. ProKMT (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to demonstrate not just that some members of the pro-Beijing camp are politically radical but that there is a distinct radical pro-Beijing camp. This is the issue. Your citations you've added refer to individuals as radicals but do not infer any connection among them in their capacity as radicals rather than as members of the pro-Beijing camp. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) - Although the article is a stub and not deserving of a separate page, it is an important political term and is easily coverable within the main article. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, China, and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Radical pro-Beijing [camp] is part of the pro-Beijing camp. However, "radical pro-Beijing" is a political term used in Hong Kong, and the article must be preserved because it is also detailed in the Chinese Wikipedia. It should never be merged into the Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) article, especially since it is necessary to describe radical organizations or politicians individually within the pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). ProKMT (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please present reliable sources demonstrating this is a distinct political organization. Simonm223 (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) per Royz-vi Tsibele's rationale - Amigao (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of the sources are low-quality or mention individual names only in passing. This is usually not sufficient to label someone as belonging to a certain camp. Vacosea (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through the sources carefully and, frankly, with many of them there's no indication of relevance in the slightest to the topic of any organized political group, camp, bloc or formation. The whole article is WP:SYNTH trying to construct a conspiracy out of a few conservative politicians and some civil society groups they are not formally linked to. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even understand this article in order to evaluate it. It seems to be saying that the same people are both radical and traditionalist. How is that possible? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is radical as in "really very a lot", not radical as in "totally awesome" or "burn it down and start over". -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to the Chinese Wikipedia when I decided on the title of the article: zh:激進建制派. I believe that English and Chinese may have different meanings. Moreover, while traditional conservatism does not have the same meaning as radical conservatism, it can be used in a similar sense in that it is reactionary. ProKMT (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this article makes it seem like there is an organized group with known members who constitute a political camp. This is not, at all, the case. This is, as I said above, simply a content-fork to make the WP:SKYBLUE that some politicians in Hong Kong have extreme political stances. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to associate them with a few minor incidents of violence perpetrated by allegedly aligned civil society groups. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the article makes it seem like there is an organised group with known members. From re-reading it it seems that this "camp" (a word that doesn't suggest organisation) is the eqivalent of "left-wing Labour" in the UK or "Pro-Trump Republican" in the US. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to know what editors commenting over the weekend and today think should happen with this article and why.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and then delete and create-protect per WP:FORK and WP:SALT. I'm confused again why this was even created. It reads like a parody created by Terry Gilliam. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 29 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) 17:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of CD Travadores players

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

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This list of footballers fails that policy because of scant source material, which makes the selection of names almost entirely random. Inclusion criteria are too broad, club goes back to 1929. The player base from most of this era is completely impossible to verify, the list is utterly impossible to maintain and the vast majority of entries on the list would be amateur footballers that fail WP:GNG individually. People that do meet GNG individually, and whose playing for CD Travadores we have verified, can be collected in a category. Geschichte (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Football, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – By default, a category for CD Travadores players should be created. The club is not relevant enough for a separate list. Svartner (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable list of non-notable people. Giant Snowman 18:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nomination, fails WP:NLIST. Govvy (talk) 19:16, 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 redirect‎ to List of radio stations in West Virginia. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WXAF

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only sources are directory listings, trivial mentions, and the usual FCC primary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, United States of America, and West Virginia. AusLondonder (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in West Virginia: another run-of-the-mill religious station that I'm skeptical actually has the required significant coverage. (Even the non-GNG sources mentioned by the nominator were only recently added, by someone else, as an attempt to hopefully starve off afd, but non-GNG sources should only really be used to basically fill in any content gaps not included in the notability-supporting sources that this article still lacks.) While the station is apparently a simulcast of WJJJ, a redirect there is not advised because that station has the same notability issues as WXAF. This is a remnant of the looser standards of 2006 and no longer warrants anything more than an {{R to list entry}} (if even that — I'm not entirely opposed to outright deletion if others feel that's more valid). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in West Virginia per Wcquiddich, and my doubts that the license was renewed by the FCC in 2004 late because 'however after consideration that the station served in the public's interest, it was renewed'; it was renewed mainly because the owner stayed out of trouble during their last license and the FCC told them not slack off on the renewal again. I don't think either station passes GNG, even with the attempted rescue by Milonica. Nate • (chatter) 18:27, 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 redirect‎ to Rugby Football League. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League XIII

AfDs for this article:

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

Page has a single reference which is an error 404, context is minimal, and the article is missing anything the team actually did, fails WP:GNG Mn1548 (talk) 15:57, 15 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Rugby league. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rugby Football League. Not enough content to justify a stand-alone article in its current state, but it's a plausible search term as the team played several fixtures in the previous century against national teams such as Australia and France. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 22 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) 06:06, 30 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) 17:59, 7 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 Beni Ebeid SC. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beni Ebeid Stadium

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

No refs on the page for many years. Not seeing much which could be included however the sources may not be in English. JMWt (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No located sources.

🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 15:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beni Ebeid SC as ATD. Definitely not notable. Mccapra (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sport of athletics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Beni Ebeid, the town it's in. The stadium isn't owned by the football club, they just operate there. The football club Beni Ebeid SC also needs to be merged into the town article. As it doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beni Ebeid SC as above; not even mentioned at the town article. Giant Snowman 19:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I sent Beni Ebeid SC to AfD, so now it's an inappropriate target! And it is mentioned in the town article now! :/ Govvy (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it needs fixing rather than deletion! Similar to what I've done to Beni Ebeid SC, I'll update this article one with new content in the nearest possible time. Ben5218 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've updated the article and added references. It's still a stub, but I think that's enough to keep it. Thoughts, everyone? @GiantSnowman, @Govvy, @Mccapra, @JayCubby.
Ben5218 (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks for finding these Ben5218 but a Facebook post and two pieces of coverage saying the name of the stadium is changing don’t make it notable. I still think a merge and redirect to either the club or the town is best. Mccapra (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. Giant Snowman 17:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That Facebook post contains a video discussing the stadium's and club's history, though, and only one reference covers the name change, not two. Since my last comment here, another four references were added (I can find and add more easily, if needed), and I also added more content. This topic definitely passes WP:GNG now, in my opinion. Ben5218 (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the sources currently in the article. Decent enough coverage about an Egyptian topic. Geschichte (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are one line mentions or unreliable. And I think I've been cyber attacked by one of the sources I clicked on.Tamsier (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamsier All existing sources are certainly not unreliable and provide sufficient or enough information on the points mentioned in the article. I'm not sure which link might cause some kind of "cyberattacks", but if you tell me which one is it, I can easily replace it with another reference. Ben5218 (talk) 16:24, 29 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) 17:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House management

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

Unreferenced article on ambiguous term. Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Business, and Management. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely WP:OR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDICT, this is nothing but a show business trivia definition. — Maile (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. The scope of the article, or its possible use as a dab, is not well stated. "Front of the house management" is an occupation, but I'm not sure this is the right title. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 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 delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shauna Vollmer King

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

WP:BLP of a writer and organizational founder, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, neither writers nor founders of organizations are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source media coverage about their work -- but this is referenced entirely to glancing namechecks of her existence as a provider of soundbite in articles about other things or people, which is not what it takes: we're not looking for sources in which she speaks about someone or something else, we're looking for sources that are about her.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to show much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A BEFORE search turns up no sources that pass GNG.Dclemens1971 (talk)

Keep. This person is notable. Upon seeing a few sources like The Denver Post, one of the major news publishers. You can see a full detailed paragraph is covered.

"Shauna King, president of International Medical Relief, said about 20 people will go on this mission, including doctors, nurses, medical students, a disaster and refugee trained psychologist and Kelly. Several more have applied, King said, such as oral surgeons and other medical providers.

International Medical Relief dispatched a crew to Lesvos over a month ago to organize lodgings, a clinic station, transportation and line up interpreters.

Roughly 1,500 refugees arrive in Lesvos on overloaded boats on a daily basis, King said, and most are there temporarily."Larvatiled (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King is referenced in a single paragraph of a much longer local human-interest story (here's the link; actually published in the weekly local Broomfield Enterprise, a sub-brand of the Post but not the Post itself) focused on a local resident going on an International Medical Relief trip. All it says about King is that she is president of IMF; it quotes her speaking to other topics but contains no additional details that would help us know why she is notable. It is by definition a WP:TRIVIALMENTION and thus not appropriate to establish notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People don't become notable on the basis of sources in which they're speaking or writing about other things, they become notable on the basis of sources in which they're the subject that other people are speaking or writing about. That is, not sources which quote her statement on a mission: sources in which other people are talking about her. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I found more information on her uncle (a Catholic priest) than on her in my search. If I cut the middle name I get social media profiles and information on an unrelated Shauna King. -- asilvering (talk) 03:17, 29 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Eitan Mekif Ramat Gan High School

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

Cannot find anything notable about the school. According to the school website (see link on wiki page) (translated from the Hebrew) there were around 30 and 160 students - indicating it is a very small school. Newhaven lad (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Not a notable school. Marokwitz (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page lacks sourcing, and secondary sources don't seem to exist. Not notable. The HR heading is interesting as it appears to call staff "assets" and "property". I expect just an amusing lack of clarity. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:18, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 14:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Christian Hackett

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

Not notable. Appears to be promotional. Pprsmv (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Likely autobiography. I found a capsule review of Quiet powers of the possible (ProQuest 1807074607) and a review of his co-translation of Wahl (ProQuest 2371191098). Outside the Gates does not appear to be notable; I couldn't find any significant independent coverage of it. This falls short of WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC in my opinion. Jfire (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quiet Powers seems highly notable in the field of Continental Philosophy. Besides the review noted, I located scholarly reviews here and here:

ffrench, Patrick. Review of Quiet Powers of the Possible: Interviews in Contemporary French Phenomenology, by Tarek R. Dika, W. Chris Hackett. French Studies: A Quarterly Review, vol. 71 no. 3, 2017, p. 450-451. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/article/666301.

Notre Dame Philosophy Reviews, https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/quiet-powers-of-the-possible-interviews-in-contemporary-french-phenomenology/

Quiet Powers book is an important achievement and was published in the most prestigious book series (Perspectives in Continental Philosophy) in English dealing with Continental Philosophy.

Hackett's edition of Wahl’s Human Existence and Transcendence was reviewed here:

https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/human-existence-and-transcendence/

and here (Continental Philosophy Review, the premier journal in its field):

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11007-020-09488-8

These reviews show it is a notable acheivement by returning Wahl back to prominence in contemporary Continental Philosophy in English as well as recovering an historical witness to philosophical engagement in France during the Occupation and the Holocaust. The book, in French, is commonly called a "watershed" and its English translation is a big deal.

Hackett's writings and translations are published in major academic publishers that form the upper echelon of his academic field(s) (Fordham UP, Northwestern UP, Bloomsbury Academic, University of Virginia Press, University of Notre Dame Press, most notably) and his translations and monographs have been reviewed in the most significant outlets in modern theology (incl. Modern Theology itself) and continental philosophy (Cont. Phil Review, Notre Dame Phil Reviews, etc). A look at his CV on Academia.edu shows that he has published dozens of articles in most of these outlets as well, and has publications, beyond English-lang journals, are found in Hungarian, French, and Spanish outlets.

Dr. Hackett's Outside the Gates was reviewed here: https://europeanconservative.com/articles/reviews/a-philosophical-adventure-towards-freedom/

Based on this, Hackett should be called a central figure in French Phenomenology, Continental Philosophy, and has made significant contributions to Catholic Theology from out of this nexus.

As a key figure in the reception of French Phenomenology into English via translation and publication, as an author developing a constructive philosophical vision based on this reception, I would say he's a notable figure in his academic fields.

The problem with this article is that it frames Hackett as a novelist instead of a philosopher. 216.249.67.21 (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Continental Philosophy review is the same one that I found, but I agree that the other sources put him over the threshold, and now that Wglegoman has address the WP:PROMO issues I'm happy to switch to keep. Jfire (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, Christianity, England, Australia, Indiana, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current page does not contain sufficient external evidence of notability to retain. I haven't done a full search online/offline to see if there is something else to bring it up to line, but since it very clearly smells like an autobiography, if it's not improved before the end of discussion, it looks like a delete. @Jrife's analysis is sound. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See improved article. Wglegoman (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep -- rewritten article (thanks Wglegoman) makes the WP:PROF C1 criteria pass pretty darn clear. In a book-based field that many books/translations placed with major university presses (and their difficult peer review processes) strongly suggests considerable academic respect by peers. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete- a search of google scholar doesn't turn up anything that would imply he meets WP:PROF~~ Psychastes (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He publishes under several variations: W. C. Hackett, William C. Hackett, William Christian Hackett, W. Chris Hackett. I think that is it. His scholarly profile opens up more with that in mind. Wglegoman (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nice catch there, yeah. I see the sources you've added, he should meet WP:PROF based on those reviews of his book. Psychastes (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:HEY - with thanks to Wglegoman. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple scholarly sources identified in this discussion and added to the articleso that WP:NACADEMIC is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:02, 21 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) Cavarrone 23:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Political and Legal Education

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

according to https://web.archive.org/web/20061019054352/http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EPTW/eptw8/eptw8l.html - the IPLE is a programme of study developed in New Jersey - not an organisation. The reference is dated 1995. This is the reference that I can find to IPLE. That suggests it was not widely used. On that basis, I suggest this page is deleted. Newhaven lad (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, Education, United States of America, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Source searches are demonstrating that this may meet notability requirements. I have copy edited the article to denote that it is an educational program, rather than an organization. Additionally, regarding the nomination, the degree to which a program is used has no bearing on notability for topics. Below are a few sources to consider:
Huberman, A.M.; Miles, M.B. (2013). Innovation up Close: How School Improvement Works. Environment, Development and Public Policy: Public Policy and Social Services. Springer US. ISBN 978-1-4899-0390-7. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
Park, J.S.; United States. Office of Education (1978). Education in Action: 50 Ideas that Work. DHEW publication ; no. (OE) 77-01018. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
United States. Office of Education (1974). Innovative Education Practices: 1974. Innovative Education Practices. The Office. Retrieved April 22, 2024.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books and Google Scholar. [12], for example, is a very detailed article by a freelance writer. There are a lot of other sources. James500 (talk) 21:37, 22 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!} 23:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Changing from my earlier !vote of delete per WP:HEY. Sources provided above by Northamerica1000 and James500 make a convincing case for passing WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I'd love to see more sources, especially from non-government entities, to further cement notability, this does pass notability per NA. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak and reluctant keep. While I question the scope of this program and therefore wonder how notable it really is, it does appear to pass based on available information. If it really is a program affecting numerous areas, this article needs a lot more information. My Google search for this institute did not impress me but did show there is some legitimacy to it. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:22, 29 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) 17:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Gentry Jr.

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a local political officeholder, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The attempted notability claim here is that he's a clerk of the county courts and vice-mayor of a city, which are not "inherently" notable offices -- they're offices where he could get an article if he were shown to clear WP:GNG on the basis of a lot of media coverage, but not ones where he would be automatically eligible for a Wikipedia article just because he exists. But five of the eight footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all (stuff self-published by his employer, his own LinkedIn, etc.), and another is just a glancing namecheck of his existence in a biography of his father -- which leaves just two footnotes that actually represent reliable source media coverage about him, which is not nearly enough to clinch the notability of a purely local political figure all by itself. And notability is not inherited, so he isn't automatically entitled to have an article just because his father has one either.
Also note that another article about the same person was previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Gentry Jr., but this article is different in form (but not really in substance) from the old version and the prior discussion was a soft delete due to minimal participation, so I wouldn't feel comfortable speedying it as a G4. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat and the last AfD - he fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, and there's some puffery. SportingFlyer T·C 16:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Finance, and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. The sources in the article do not come close to the WP:GNG bar that consensus says local politicians of this sort must meet. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:00, 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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Rankin (British politician)

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

Somewhat promotional biography of candidate for the upcoming UK election. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Coverage is routine for any election candidate. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — they must either win the election and thereby hold the seat, or already have some other claim of preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them a Wikipedia article anyway. But the former hasn't happened, and the latter hasn't been shown here at all. No prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article now. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Draftification might be an ATD to consider here since this is a pretty safe seat for Rankin's party and this would be a good start to an article if and when he is elected to this seat. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think draftspace should be a repository for campaign literature nor a repository for articles on individuals potentially notable one day. AusLondonder (talk) 16:11, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Miles

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

The sourcing of this article consists of the typical self-promotion one would expect of a person whose current job is trying to sell himself as a motivational speaker. Lots of profiles written by himself or his marketing team published on sites where he writes; interviews; advertorials. A Google search brings up nothing better. The claim of "CIO at Dell Computers" fails verification; the two sources cited list him only as a VP (not a CIO). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Military. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no credible assertion of notability, obvious promotional tone, probable COI by an s.p.a. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my apologies as I was unaware of this stipulation. Can we default back to John's original listing prior to me making changes and I will not edit his page moving forward. If there are any more edit s to be made moving forward, I will ensure that the individual making them does not have a vested interest in John or his work. The page has been on Wikipedia for a substantial time and we just wanted to make some key changes to the information to better represent John. We would love to get the original page re-instated rather than the deletion option and I will not make any changes moving forward:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_R._Miles&oldid=1209709820 Creativeedge1 (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- @Creativeedge1: The article had no better signs of notability before you edited it. But I would recommend that you declare a conflict of interest with the subject, especially if you are being paid to edit the article. And, December 2023 does not constitute "a substantial time." 15:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Your edits have not significantly changed anything, for better or worse. It would still have the same issues that are being flagged now. WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added the conflict of interest aspect onto my own page. How does one add an author page onto John's site as we will find someone to do it since I cannot based on the conflict of interest aspect. Thank you. 2001:56A:F63E:4B00:38A8:B7D:1A51:47FB (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2001:56A:F63E:4B00:38A8:B7D:1A51:47FB and Mickey Mikkelson of Creative Edge: It's not clear what you mean by "add an author page onto John's site"? If Miles has his own website, you can hire someone to edit that however you like. If you are talking about adding information to the John R. Miles biography here at Wikipedia, since you have declared your COI, you are free to suggest edits to the article at Talk:John R. Miles while this discussion is ongoing — in fact, you are encouraged to if you can add material that will bolster arguments for his notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If his book "Passion Struck" was a page on Wikipedia, then it would increase this page's chances. (Not sure why "author" isn't listed at the top of the page). Same goes for the podcast.

How do I do this?? 2001:56A:F63E:4B00:38A8:B7D:1A51:47FB (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the point of that comment was that if his book Passion Struck were notable enough for its own Wikipedia page, that might be something. There are two problems with that argument:

I don't believe the book is notable enough for its own Wikipedia page;
even if it were, that would just result in a finding that Miles' biography should be reduced to a redirect to the article about the book.

- WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PR items are all I find. Being in the Navy isn't notable, rest reads like a resume. PROMO Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:: If his book "Passion Struck" was a page on Wikipedia, then it would increase this page's chances. (Not sure why "author" isn't listed at the top of the page). Same goes for the podcast. (Although I note that the citations, even on the older version of the page, don't support its claim for such a high status.) As it stands, the sources aren't strong enough for notability. WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These substantiate the book and podcast: https://www.hofferaward.com/First-Horizon-Award-finalists.html , https://thebestbusinessminds.com/award-winners , https://nextbigideaclub.com/magazine/next-big-idea-clubs-february-2024-must-read-books/46393/, https://interviewvalet.com/20-great-podcasts-for-conversation/ https://interviewvalet.com/20-great-podcasts-for-business-and-mindset/ https://podcasts.feedspot.com/inspirational_podcasts/ https://chartable.com/teams/passion-struckthe-passion-struc/dashboard?podcast_id=the-passion-struck-podcast 47.199.136.4 (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://chartable.com/podcasts/the-passion-struck-podcast 47.199.136.4 (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does one go about creating an author page. I am told the author cannot do it themselves. Passionstruck (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These sources confirm CIO at Dell: https://www.enterpriseappstoday.com/news/online-crm-leader-launches-chatter-social-networking-for-its-cloud-services.html, https://pitchbook.com/profiles/person/71293-60P#positions, https://www.marketscreener.com/insider/JOHN-MILES-A1EQA5/, 47.199.136.4 (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PR items confirming he isn't notable. Interviews don't help either I'm afraid. Oaktree b (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling with this entire topic of notoriety. What needs to be demonstrated to showcase notoriety? How does one create a book page as I have always been told the author cannot create their own page for themselves or their works. Passionstruck (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are these notable: https://wraltechwire.com/2005/01/03/seven-georgia-it-professionals-crack-computerworlds-premier-100-it-leader-list/,https://www.eweek.com/security/lend-lease-constructs-highrise-for-security/, https://www.networkworld.com/article/875884/the-big-management-fix-2004-12-27.html, https://www2.cso.com.au/article/6925/erecting_secure_infrastructure/, https://www.computerworld.com/article/1707631/real-estate-firm-mixes-it-management.html, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120109005438/en/Catalina-Names-Former-Dell-Executive-John-Miles-as-New-Chief-Information-Officer, https://diversitymbamagazine.com/uncategorized/john-miles-12th-annual-elite-business-leaders-conference-speaker/, Passionstruck (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Passionstruck: The term is notability, not notoriety. And one establishes that a topic is notable by following the Wikipedia guidelines on the issue: notability guidelines for biographies and general notability guidelines. In general, we need evidence that Miles has been the subject of multiple significant instances of independent coverage in various media. The items about Miles' work at Lend Lease are the closest things to significant, independent coverage, but it is all coverage of the same thing: Miles achieved a better degree of network security for his employer. The rest of the sources you've provided us are just press releases indicating that Miles got hired into a particular position or that he is a speaker at a conference. So, closer, but not there yet, in my opinion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not get it. How is what has been provided any different in notability than these examples: Jim Kwik Daniel H. Pink Ethan Kross. In fact, in almost all these cases, more has been provided. This person was recognized for prestigious awards, the book has awards, the podcast has awards. They have held as many if not more prestigious positions. Their podcast was just ranked #43 in the world yesterday and #2 health and wellness podcast globally ahead of Jay Shetty. They have interviewed celebrities and billionaires. What more does it take? Passionstruck (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, given that your username is the same as Miles' podcast, I think you can stop speaking about yourself in the third person. Second, I will agree that the Jim Kwik and Ethan Kross articles are questionable, but the presence of other bad articles on Wikipedia is not a valid argument to keep this bad article. Third: the popularity of your podcast or the notability of your podcast guests is not the issue here. The issue here is the availability of multiple significant (not just mentions-in-passing) independent (not just stuff that was written by you our your staff for insertion into program notes, etc.) coverage in reliable sources. So far, only one instance of such coverage (the coverage of your work at Lend Lease) has been provided. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are independent rankings of the podcast: https://chartable.com/charts/itunes/us-alternative-health-podcasts-d39bb3f1-0766-4074-9531-5379d6a9b267 https://toppodcast.com/apple-podcasts/top-alternative-health-podcasts/, 47.199.136.4 (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not writing any of the articles that I see here. All these were written by independent publishers. I did not even do my initial submission. I have no control over what Next Big Idea Club publishes, or CEO World, or Network World, or Computerworld, or Business Advisor or any of them. They are independent of me completely. Also, I have accomplished a ton more, it's just most Fortune 50 companies Like Dell and Lowe's don't let you talk about the work you are doing publicly. We were forbidden to do that at Lowe's and I led the compete rebuild from the worst security hack in retail history. The examples I gave are the tip of the ice burg. I have found hundreds of articles that have no where near the amount of notable back-up information that has been provided. 47.199.136.4 (talk) 21:10, 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 ‎ draftify. It is clear that outright deletion is off the table, and the question is whether to keep the article in main space, or move it to draft space to be worked upon. People on the "keep" side have, validly, pointed out that an article may be appropriate even if the election has not being called yet. While the exact date is not decided, it must happen before the end of September 2025. However, the issues articulated by e.g. Teraplane that the article is not mature enough yet for mainspace is valid. For the vast majority of races, candidates have not yet been decided, and so the tables in the article are filled up with "TBD". That makes the current page much more of a placeholder than an encyclopedia article. People who are disappointed in the result here may take solace that the situation here is temporary, and that the page will inevitably move back to mainspace once nominations begin in earnest. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft is at Draft:Candidates of the next Australian federal election. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates of the next Australian federal election

AfDs for this article:

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

No election has been called. No writs have been issued. No candidates have been confirmed by the AEC. Just as with the previous AfD we currently have a article with tables which are mostly empty and a blazingly-bright WP:CRYSTAL-ball of an article. This should once again be Draftifyd and page protected applied to ensure that creation only occurs through AfC when appropriate and not before. TarnishedPath^talk 11:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 11:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Mangoe, @Onetwothreeip, @Teraplane, @Ajf773, @J2m5, @Marcnut1996, @ITBF and @Cabrils as editors involved in the previous AfD discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 11:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily draftify: None of the grounds which were suggested in the previous AfD for this article to come out of draftspace have been fulfilled, so it having been moved out of draftspace is spurious. The article continues to consist of empty tables. Furthermore, arguments articulated in the last AfD that this article requires sporadic contributions from a range of editors and thus needs to be in the mainspace have been disproven, as the article has been kept completely up-to-date in draftspace. There is already consensus that this article should be in draftspace. The grounds given that there is now "sufficient content" compared to when it was moved into draftspace are not correct. Also agree with protecting the page as suggested above. J2m5 (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on the editorial commitments that have emerged from this discussion, I'm changing my opinion to "keep," as of what has been discussed on 20 April. J2m5 (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep This is a spurious deletion proposal. An election being called or candidates being confirmed by election authorities has never been a requirement for either a candidate list article, or to add candidates as content to articles. For comparison, the 2022 candidates article was created 13 months before the 2022 election was held, and it is currently 13 months before the next election is due. Candidates in the next United Kingdom general election was created 19 months before the election is due. Candidates for the 2024 United States House of Representatives election were added as early as November 2022.

The opening comment is a complete misuse of WP:CRYSTAL, which prohibits articles and content on unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. CRYSTAL also states Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. [...] Examples of appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics. An Australian federal election occurring by 2025 is most certainly expected to take place, and not an unverified speculation, rumour or presumption. The candidates for the next Australian election are as notable as the candidates for the last election, and their candidacy is reported by reliable sources, as notability and reliable sources being the key policies in establishing articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERTHINGS is not an argument that should be used in deletion discussions. You argued that WP:CRYSTAL was misused in the last AfD discussion, it didn't pass the sniff test then and it doesn't pass the sniff test now. TarnishedPath^talk 14:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And "passing the sniff test" is? ITBF (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about not having tables which are almost completely empty as a start? You mention below that the size off the article has grown by 60% since the last AfD. However, a 60% increase in data from the previous state where the tables where almost completely empty has still left the article in a state where the tables are almost completely empty. TarnishedPath^talk 08:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the tables which are almost completely empty were removed, would you support keeping the article? I am not aware of any policy against empty tables necessitating deletion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article which claims to be "Candidates of the next Australian federal election" which doesn't even know who almost all those candidates are is clearly not ready for mainspace. TarnishedPath^talk 11:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes all, or almost all, of the declared candidates. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That says all we need to know! J2m5 (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

speedy draftify and a barrage of trout for the promoter to mainspace for simply ignoring the previous AfD, perhaps in hope that we wouldn't notice o something.Nothing significant has changed which would invalidate the previous outcome. Mangoe (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy draftify: An important article but not ready for mainspace yet. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The size of the article has increased by 60% since the AfD was closed and there are twice as many inline citations. This reflects the ongoing reporting by major media outlets of preselection contests and outcomes. The election is due by May 2025, which is barely over a year away, and could easily be held sooner. What exactly is the bright line that "delete" votes are expecting the article to cross before it is fit for mainspace – is it a particular date? A particular proportion of electorates with confirmed candidates? The argument raised again in this AfD – that no one is actually a candidate for an election until the nominations officially close – is just plain wrong and has no evidence to support it. ITBF (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is literally close to empty. An excellent time to move it to mainspace is when there are a fair number of non-incumbent candidates announced, or incumbents confirmed. I think it is untenable to have blank tables in any published article in context of WP:WHITE. J2m5 (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, judging article development by byte size rather than, eg, the amount of information in the article, is not a valid means of testing for whether the article should be created. The number and complexity of tables in an article — the main contributor to the article's increase in size — is not to my knowledge a factor in AfD. J2m5 (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can simply remove the empty tables for now, or we can put placeholder values in the cells. This isn't a problem that requires deleting the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really struggle to see the point of an article if most of it is blank! No one is suggesting to delete the article, just that it be moved to draftspace until it is more complete. J2m5 (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. It doesn't exactly portray a good impression to readers if they bring up Wikipedia pages which are mostly blank. It's not like the election is imminent. TarnishedPath^talk 13:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip, did you really believe replacing empty cells with TBD addressed any concern? TarnishedPath^talk 07:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It addresses the concern around "whitespace". Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely has not. The cells are still effectively blank. It also in my opinion suggests that those parties will nominate a candidate in every district, which violates WP:CRYSTAL. J2m5 (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think the last AfD was necessarily correct, either - an election does not need to be called for this to be a valid article. I'd strongly oppose any draftification. SportingFlyer T·C 00:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by the fact all of the draftify votes are discussing editing issues, not notability issues. There will be a next election, and there are candidates for it. SportingFlyer T·C 00:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to J2m5 !vote above. This should not have been brought out of draft given the previous AfD discussion and the state it was in and continues to be in. I was having a hard time deciding whether to CSD G4 this or nominate for AfD when I saw this was pushed to mainspace again. It should simply not be here given established consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 01:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been elaborated what the supposed problems with the article is. Articles for upcoming elections are expressly allowed by the WP:CRYSTAL policy. If this article includes all the candidates that reliable sources confirm to be candidates, then what exactly are the problems with the article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upcoming election? So we have a date then? It could be this year or it could be next year. No one knows.

As mentioned above we have table entries in electorates for parties where there is no indication that those parties will field candidates. There will also be redistributions between now and then. This is well and truly WP:CRYSTAL. TarnishedPath^talk 08:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources overwhelmingly support that there is an upcoming election. I removed the columns for parties which may not be fielding candidates in those electorates, so the tables now only have columns for parties where they are contesting all or most of the electorate, consistent with the articles for previous elections. And again, WP:CRYSTAL explicitly exempts these kinds of future election articles, because they concern events with a very high degree of certainty occurring. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upcoming? So is it this year or next year? Also, you've not addressed the fact that you have rows for electorates that will not exist at the next election. You also don't know who the candidates are for most of the electorates (Hensel TBD fills most of the article). Obviously WP:CRYSTAL. TarnishedPath^talk 14:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there is not a specific date does not mean WP:CRYSTAL is violated. The TBD issue is an editing issue, not a notability issue. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. That's already the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 16:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as the encyclopedia is not a crystal ball. Speedy draftify is not recommended. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 16:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per User:TarnishedPath's excellent nomination; and J2m5. Cabrils (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per nomination, all arguments from original deletion still hold. Blank cells have been converted to TBD (where much of the size increase comes from, but still hold no information. The few pre-selected candidates are still over 90% from one party, so this article really has a very samll primary audience of party members. Some lower house seats will be removed and possibly some added due to a redistribution. Another indicator of how premature this page is. Teraplane (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any potential closer should note that the proposer of this discussion notified the participants of the previous deletion discussion, which can be considered canvassing, given the outcome of that discussion. The discussion should be held open for long enough to consider broader views, and I intend to notify the Australian politics editor noticeboards. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:APPNOTE notifying all editors "who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic" is appropriate. TarnishedPath^talk 10:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, the discussion is already listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics#Article_alerts and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 11:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All contributors to that discussion were notified, including those for and against, so the view that it was canvassing to do that is not correct. J2m5 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a relatively covert form of canvassing if they are doing so with the awareness that the people being notified are overall likely to support a particular view. I assume good faith in this particular instance, it's simply something that a closer would want to consider.

Also, nobody reads those WikiProject "article alerts", and that deletion sorting has a very narrow audience. I will make more visible notifications for the relevant editing community. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was absolutely nothing covert about my notifying editors who were involved in the previous discussion. I was open and transparent about what I was doing. Per no one readying those article alerts, where do you think I got the links from? I watch them sporadically. TarnishedPath^talk 07:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To the closer– the outcome of the previous deletion discussion was that this be moved to draftspace, which it was. If the outcome of this discussion is "no consensus," then the article should be moved back into draftspace as it was before, because the existing (and still standing) consensus is that the article should be in draftspace. Having "no consensus" to a second AfD after the first AfD was draftify should mean that the article should remain a draft. Rather than going through the AfC process, which is standard for drafts which have been created through an AfD, editors unilaterally published the article without AfC, meaning this AfD has essentially been an AfC – and if an AfC has "no consensus," then status quo prevails and it remains a draft. J2m5 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely in this case - the last AfD only had five editors supporting deletion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the last AfD, conducted within Wikipedia's guidelines, resulted in draftify. J2m5 (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, I mean that only five editors in the last AfD supported either deletion or draftifying. Onetwothreeip (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: also, the pre-selection ballot section has crept back on to htis article. These are of even less relevance and harder to find references for, was dealt with in this AfD: https://w.wiki/9jVo . Teraplane (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have now alerted editors to this discussion on the Next Australian federal election talk page and on the relevant WikiProject talk page. The discussion should remain open to consider their opinions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unless a snap election is called, there will be many more nominations in the coming months, so why would you waste time for a deletion discussion whereas it more information rolling in the coming months. The next election is not too far away and their announced candidates are not rumours.Villian Factman (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intention to draftify is to wait until those nominations come. J2m5 (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an extreme view which is very unsupported. These types of articles start months before the elections themselves start. The article isn't "Nominations of the next Australian federal election". Onetwothreeip (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry -- I should have used the word "announcements" not nominations. I support the article existing well before the actual noms open. J2m5 (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Announced candidates? Is that why the tables in this article are full of TBD? TarnishedPath^talk 12:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains the confirmed (by reliable sources) candidates for the next election, which can be considered interchangeable with "announced". Onetwothreeip (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what are the TBDs then? This is obviously not ready for mainspace given the number of TBDs. TarnishedPath^talk 14:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's an editing issue, not a notability issue. Something is ready for mainspace if it's notable. No one is arguing it's not, apart from a mis-application of WP:CRYSTAL. And notable articles can be in poor shape, like this one. SportingFlyer T·C 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it is permanently in poor shape no matter how much "editing" goes on until more candidates announce their candidacies in the near future. J2m5 (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where could that possibly be coming from? Wikipedia's policies absolutely promote the existence of small articles, as that is how they grow into larger articles. They do not need to be incubated to full size in draft space before publishing. It might even be larger and more verifiable than what would be considered WP:STUB, currently having 44 references. A stub is an article deemed too short and incomplete to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject. So even if this was too short or incomplete, that wouldn't justify removal from article space. The article on the year 2024 was created in 2002; it's not a draft waiting to be published on 31 December. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have been trying to think of ways to bring this discussion to a consensus. I think it is evident that the subject of the article is notable, and where the main point of disagreement is is the general ugliness/emptiness of the article (which is a valid reason for draftifying an article until the article starts filling up). As editors, we need to come to WP:CONSENSUS rather than have this go to some sort of vote, which is not ideal. I have created User:J2m5/draft6 (unfinished) as an idea for how to dramatically reduce the amount of whitespace/emptiness in the article while clearly and effectively communicating the currently announced candidates. Please let me know what you all think of this way forward. J2m5 (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is what this article should look like for now. SportingFlyer T·C 03:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would only be temporary until the tables are fuller. J2m5 (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent proposal @J2m5, I think it shows all the important information without claiming to predict anything else. My vote(?) is to change the article to this version, and then Keep. GraziePrego (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I very much like this idea but I would like to modify it further before I support it. We could keep the tables but remove (or hide) the rows for electorates which have no declared candidates, for example. This should be discussed and approved on the article talk page, but I commend the ingenuity. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't support an article where there are table rows for divisions with only one candidate announced per division, with columns for each party. It may also be misinterpreted if there are divisions missing. Rather than dot points there could be tables with division names in column A and a bullet point list of announced candidates so far (making clear the list is provisional) in column B. That format would result in far fewer empty cells and would also not engage in predicting that One Nation or the UAP will nominate candidates in particular states and territories. J2m5 (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Prose for "No candidates have yet been announced for the electorates of Wikipedia, Miscellania, ..." could be used. 2) I would support removing the columns for One Nation and UAP until they start announcing candidates. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we are in agreement. After the AfD I will be removing the preselections section and if necessary initiating discussion about it on the talk page, but that is not relevant to the AfD itself. J2m5 (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article looking like that would need an entirely different name. Clearly it's not 'Candidates of the next Australian federal election'. That's a list of retiring members and current members, completely different article. TarnishedPath^talk 00:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean – majority of the candidates in the given draft are non-incumbents? J2m5 (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I should have written retirements and currently preselected candidates. TarnishedPath^talk 09:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Candidates are by definition preselected, so that is redundant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are editing complaints, not notability complaints. SportingFlyer T·C 01:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not the only factor in AfD... an article substantially being or appearing to be unfinished is entirely valid grounds for an article to be moved to draftspace. J2m5 (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and speedy closure

37.0.81.235 (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFDFORMAT suggests contributors do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments (ie, "voting" without giving reasoning). J2m5 (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For Pete's sake. There's nothing crystal-ball about whether the election is happening or not. All of Wikipedia is a work in progress. We can have this article in mainspace, where it will help some readers and annoy some editors, or we can have it in draftspace, where it will help no one and annoy everyone. Let it breathe. It doesn't have to be perfect. -- asilvering (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think other editors have argued that the crystal ball is whether certain candidates and parties will nominate or not, not whether the election will happen at all. I think explicitly aiming for an outcome that will 'annoy some editors' is not conductive of the aim of WP:CONSENSUS. J2m5 (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J2m5, the alternative I see here is "help no one and annoy everyone", which is clearly worse. You're currently working on a version of the article that does not contain tables (and thus hopefully annoy even fewer people), which is great. It is entirely in line with my keep !vote. -- asilvering (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Next Australian federal election Thank you J2m5 for your excellent draft presenting candidates in a much more concise and readable format User:J2m5/draft6 . I suggest the best approach is to take this draft and merge it with Next Australian federal election. This page already contains sectionson the redistribution and retiring members. So adding a simple list of seats that have declared candidate/s (just one line per seat) would convey the known pre-selected candidates and avoid all the issues of too many empty results. Teraplane (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nomination Samoht27 (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 14:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harendra Chitra Junior College, Bhaktardoba

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The sources that i could find are either primary, or school/college databases. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Assam. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 13:03, 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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve DaSilva

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

No coverage online or in newspapers to pass GNG. Kline • talk • contribs 13:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Canada. Kline • talk • contribs 13:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Undrafted player who never played professional hockey at any level. Meets no iteration of NHOCKEY (it was league First Team All-Stars that were afforded presumptive notability, not conference All-Stars). Substantively unimproved in sixteen years. Ravenswing 18:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 11:16, 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 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 14:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Henry Bergier

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

No refs on the page for many years. I've found a few magazine refs but a) these do not support the current content on the page which can therefore be removed per WP:V and b) a proportion appear to be adverts placed by the artist. If there are sources that show the subject meets the inclusion criteria that would be great, but I'm not seeing them. JMWt (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, United States of America, and New York. JMWt (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:14, 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 speedy delete‎. Deleted CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachana Shah

AfDs for this article:

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

I don’t personally see any importance of this artist to be having an article apart from she’s relative of legendary Singers. She’s failing definitely WP:GNG, WP:NBIO there’s no significant coverage which discusses her independently as Individual. There are sources which has only one incident she sang for Indian PM, non notable awards. HarshalDhotre06 (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, and India. HarshalDhotre06 (talk) 12:59, 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 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 14:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pusher trailer

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

sources not good enough to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom that this is lacking in enough sources to show notability. WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 17:35, 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 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 14:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genset trailer

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

Not enough independent sources to show notability - merge proposal was rejected Chidgk1 (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:46, 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 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 14:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Sani

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Basically a resume which collected and spun up a range of factoids. None of the references is even partial GNG type coverage of him. The only one describing him clearly looks like a self-supplied BIO.

Some concern that the creator has 25 lifetime edits and edit #5 was creation of this article which IMO was a wiki-saavy creation. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 12:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, Television, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:16, 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) 13:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penistone FM

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

In the process of updating this article about a radio station to reflect recent changes to its broadcasting frequencies, I noticed its references were somewhat thin, so went looking and found that there was very little SIGCOV out there to sustain it under WP:GNG. All I can find are a single article about it receiving grant funding in 2021 [13] and a few passing mentions in articles about other things [14] [15]. I'm just not sure there's enough weight here in terms of references to back up notability, particularly given that the radio station has been broadcasting since 2009 so at some point in that time should have done something coverage-worthy, if it was notable in any way. Flip Format (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little coverage available anywhere to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would support redirecting to an appropriate list if one exists. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:53, 21 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 14:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picky Talarico

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage. There is only one reference cited in the article, and it only verifies that Talarico was nominated for a Latin Grammy in 2005 (he's only mentioned once in that press release). On the Latin Recording Academy's website the other Latin Grammy nomination can be verified. The most significant amount of coverage I found was this 2010 article in Tablet magazine – it's not specifically about Talarico, however. There's also this 2020 interview with Diario Hoy, but interviews don't establish notability. Talarico is briefly mentioned plenty of times elsewhere, but that's all they are – mentions. toweli (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Argentina. toweli (talk) 11:56, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee Trail Arboretum

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found which could be considered against the notability criteria. JMWt (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I created this article many years ago. As I don't live anywhere nearby, it must have been based on something in books or Internet, but just now I've done a quick hunt and can't find anything relevant for this article. Perhaps someone that lives closer can add references? Anyway, I agree with the points that you've made. with best wishes, Daderot (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WP:BEFORE search brought up so little, including in local newspapers, that I'm not even sure the article's title is the correct search term. SportingFlyer T·C 01:14, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 08:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chemins de fer de Paris à Orléans et du Midi

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

No refs on the page for many years and few sources appear on the corresponding article on fr.wiki. Sources in french may exist but I'm not seeing them so suggest that any content worth keeping should be merged elsewhere JMWt (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and France. JMWt (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It is an important milestone for its two predecessors on the path to nationalisation. I have added a reference, but I don't have any time at the moment to expand it from super-stub. Iain Bell (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Iain Bell. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references and other material from the corresponding article in French. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Bosc source recently added is published by Lulu so may not be reliable but I’m not really seeing a strong case for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 15:38, 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. ✗plicit 11:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Warren

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this unfootnoted article about an actor and director, and not found anything to add. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No major roles in films and couldn't find anything.Southati (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't pass WP:ACTOR. No significat coverage found. Hkkingg (talk) 18:08, 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Girabola seasons

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

Per WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The list of seasons can already be found in the main article Girabola, another duplicate article being unnecessary. Svartner (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Angola, and Lists. Svartner (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't you include everything linked to? Category:Girabola seasons Dream Focus 11:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Svartner doesn't advocate deletion of the individual seasons, just the overarching list - which adds exactly nothing to the category. Geschichte (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, my question is whether there is a separate list if the main article already includes a list of seasons. Svartner (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Its unneeded. also kind of goes against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The way the article is made, it may as well just be a category page. Shadow311 (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The seasons are listed in the template. If no other information is in the list article, it becomes pointless. Dream Focus 23:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand/improve, in-line with List of Premier League seasons etc. This is ~~Morocco's~~ Angola's top football competition. Giant Snowman 18:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I am at abstained vote here.) This list could be more useful if done right. As GS pointed out we do have them. And @GiantSnowman: this is the Angolan league, not the Moroccan! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, getting Girabola mixed up with Botola! Giant Snowman 20:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - at the moment this is a duplicative, unnecessary article, but there's the potential for a better article here if someone wants to create something more detailed. SportingFlyer T·C 20:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner, Shadow311, Dream Focus, Govvy, and SportingFlyer: I have started the process of converting into a proper list a la List of Premier League seasons, just need someone with time and knowledge to help... Giant Snowman 20:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using RSSSF which lists all the champs... Giant Snowman 20:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and I've just noticed has pages for every individual season, such as 1979, 1980 etc. As such, if you still don't want to keep, please agree to draftify so I can work on it. Giant Snowman 20:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with draftification, but I do hope it's more comprehensive than just what's on the Girabola page. SportingFlyer T·C 15:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...which it would be if you check my edits to this article... Giant Snowman 20:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between the Premier League and the Angolan championship. The list of seasons is duplicated, as it is also included in the main article Girabola. Svartner (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girabola#Girabola_participation_details list all the information doesn't it? Dream Focus 02:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That section is absolutely incomprehensible! I have deleted. Giant Snowman 20:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm with GiantSnowman here. This article needs work, but that is not a reason for deletion, especially if it not an obvious WP:TNT. This article has a lot of potential à la List of Premier League seasons, so it's not a TNT. Anwegmann (talk) 23:16, 17 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) 18:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Right now it does contain dupliate information, but it meets WP:CLN as a navigation list. I agree this article (and the articles in this category) need cleanup and sources. Aside from CLN, I think this would be discussed as a group in reliable sources. I don't think this rises to the point of needing TNT. // Timothy :: talk 05:53, 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 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 11:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lorenz

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

Non-notable makeup artist. Page created ten years ago by a now blocked sock. No evidence of any notability whatsoever. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Austria, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:21, 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. ✗plicit 11:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Van Doren

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

Not notable and possibly a promotional page for the subject. Most of the article is about the subject's notable family (covered in other Wikipedia entries). Sources confirm that the subject is painter but not one whose work is widely-known or award-winning. Pprsmv (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Authors, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aye, there's a whole lot of fluff here; over half the text in the article is who the subject's related to, to whom he's married, that notable people once owned his studio, etc etc etc. Strip away all the dross and refbombing, and this guy's just another painter and non-notable junior academic. Ravenswing 18:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited. A line about a grandson in one of the other family articles seems to be the right amount of information for the current position. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not specifically focus on the subject and tries to show notability by mentioning other people's names.Southati (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news coverage specifically on the subject. Agree with above arguments. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:56, 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 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 11:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Beak

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

A minor local government official, who was once awarded an Order of Australia Medal, a very low award. He doesn't seem to have done anything of note. Grahame (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in google news or google books. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of chat websites

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

Unreferenced since 2013. Time to go for violating WP:V/WP:LISTN? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a valid navigational list. Category:Chat websites exist. Lists are always more useful than categories as they allow more information to be listed. And WP:LISTN clearly states There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists and Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. For years now these sorts of list have always been kept when sent to AFD. Dream Focus 14:29, 1 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!} 08:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a poorly updated and random list. Some sites closed years ago. Plenty of other sites are not listed. Some are miscategorised (eg. Omegle as "adult"). The categories are random and not necessarily helpful. Finally, it violates WP:NLIST.

WikiMane11 (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At minimum, it's a fine navigational aid/index of articles on chat websites. The features in the tables need sources, yes, but that seems like a WP:NOTCLEANUP issue, since at worst those can just be removed should someone wish to challenge them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:55, 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!} 07:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: list needs to be updated not deleted as this is useful for readers as they might search of chat websites here n there, like chat websites in 2012 or 2023 anything this would be helpful. HarryD (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Slightly different discussion, but I don't see a difference between Online chat and Instant messaging, and there is already a similar list at Comparison of cross-platform instant messaging clients. There was a failed merge proposal in 2006 that argued there were differences between online chat and IM, but I can't find evidence that these differences really exist (e.g. IRC is now described as "instant messaging"). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voice chat and video chat might be part of online chat but not instant messaging, but the articles are very vague about this. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:25, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catch! Teenieping

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

This page use many invaild sources. When you click on a page, there are also invalid pages. Guidelines have not been significantly addressed in reliable secondary sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Hkm5420 (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hkm5420 (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary sources for the show seems to be mainly available on the South Korean news websites. Here. --린눈라단 (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from this, we need to fill in secondary sources of the article. --린눈라단 (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Added a couple of things. Various sources attest of the notability of this series, including some in English (The Korea Herald, among other). The page needs trimming and probably some cuts and removal of some primary sources that are perhaps unnecessary but notability and popularity seem established. Not sure there is a valid reason for deletion in the nominator's rationale: Afds are for deletion not cleanup. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mushy Yank's improvements. The Korea Herald article is strong, and the Busan.com article is good as well. There's enough here to indicate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 16:35, 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!} 06:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see some coverage on the subject. I would like to add The Korea Herald, JoongAng Daily etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkkingg (talk • contribs) 11:44, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 08:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Shi An

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

Although he was a Chinese calligrapher, I did not find any reliable information on relevant Chinese websites, fit with Wikipedia:Notability WANGYIFAN2024 (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and China. WANGYIFAN2024 (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. "黄石庵的"传多一点"" [Huang Shi'an's "Passage a little more"]. Lianhe Zaobao (in Chinese). 2016-05-02.
  The article notes: "黄石庵原名子贞，生于1903年，原籍广东客家。他曾任《马华日报》总编辑，是南洋先驱书法家代表性人物，与朱自存先生等一起发起马来西亚书艺协会，一生积极推广书法艺术，甚为人敬重。黄老书法先由魏碑入手，继而钻研石门、何绍基，最后专心致力于康有为体，字体沉郁古朴，豪迈雄风。徐悲鸿称其书有南海气，认为黄氏之书风与其同出一家。石庵书法，曾在新加坡、中国北京中国画研究院等地办过个展。"
  From Google Translate: "Huang Shi'an, whose original name was Zizhen, was born in 1903 and was originally from Hakka in Guangdong. He was the former editor-in-chief of "Mahua Daily" and was a representative figure of pioneer calligraphers in Nanyang. He founded the Malaysian Calligraphy Association together with Mr. Zhu Zicun and others. He actively promoted the art of calligraphy throughout his life and was highly respected by people. Huang Lao first started with Wei Bei's calligraphy, then studied Shimen and He Shaoji, and finally concentrated on Kang Youwei's calligraphy, with his calligraphy being melancholy, simple and heroic. Xu Beihong said that his calligraphy has the style of the South China Sea, and he believed that Huang's calligraphy style came from the same family as him. Shi An's calligraphy has been held in solo exhibitions in Singapore, the Chinese Painting Research Institute in Beijing, China, and other places."
  The article notes: "写这幅对联时黄老86岁，两年后，1990年，黄老病逝于吉隆坡。"
  From Google Translate: "Huang Lao was 86 years old when he wrote this couplet. Two years later, in 1990, Huang Lao died of illness in Kuala Lumpur."
2. "Chinese Calligraphy article". 中国书法 [Chinese Calligraphy] (in Chinese). 2006. p. 83. Retrieved 2024-04-09 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "其他著名的书家还有李家耀、黄石庵。... 黄石庵曾是两任《马华日报》总编,历任马来西亚书法赛评审,积极推广书法艺术在马来西亚的发展,门生有刘创周 ī 每父に記依嶼津吴雙清心☆彬米雲之祐道兄属陈景昭南马柔佛州的书法,以麻坡陈人浩的影响为最深。"
  From Google Translate: "Other famous calligraphers include Li Jiayao and Huang Shi'an. ... Huang Shi'an was the editor-in-chief of the "Mahua Daily" for two terms, and served as a judge for the Malaysian Calligraphy Competition. He actively promoted the development of calligraphy art in Malaysia. His students include Liu Chuangzhou ī Every father に记 Yiyujin Wu Shuangqingxin☆ Binmi Yunzhi Brother Yau Tao is a calligrapher from Johor State in southern Malaysia, Chen Jingzhao, with the greatest influence being from Muar’s Chen Renhao."
3. 美术辞林: 书法艺术卷 [Art Dictionary: The Art of Calligraphy Vol.] (in Chinese). 陕西人民美术出版社. Shaanxi People's Fine Arts Publishing House. 1992. p. 324. Retrieved 2024-04-09 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "【黄石庵】 1902 年生于广东惠应县,中国血统马来西亚书法家。黄石庵早年即浸淫于诗词、书法,十四岁时在全县诗词书法比赛中名列-榜首。至今临池不辍,达七十余载。其书法由帖到碑,再汉入魏,又潜心于康有为、于右任书风的探求,并极力追求时代气息,形成了沉^古朴、表迈雄强的书风,"
  From Google Translate: "[Huang Shi An] Born in Huiying County, Guangdong in 1902, he is a Malaysian calligrapher of Chinese origin. Huang Shi An was immersed in poetry and calligraphy in his early years. At the age of fourteen, he ranked first in the county's poetry and calligraphy competition. So far, I have been visiting the pond for more than seventy years. His calligraphy evolved from calligraphy to tablets, and then from the Han Dynasty to the Wei Dynasty. He also devoted himself to the exploration of the calligraphy style of Kang Youwei and Yu Youren, and vigorously pursued the flavor of the times, forming a calligraphy style that is simple, simple, and majestic."
4. "大马书法界耆宿黄石庵书法展览下月初在我国举行" [The calligraphy exhibition of Huang Shi'an, a veteran in the Malaysian calligraphy circle, will be held in Malaysia early next month.]. Lianhe Zaobao (in Chinese). 1986-03-24. p. 4. Retrieved 2024-04-09 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.
  The article notes: "应新加坡中华书学协会之邀,马来西亚书界耆宿黄石庵将于4月3日至 6日,在中华总商会展览厅举行个人书法展览会。配合展览会的举行, 中华书协将在社会发展部及李氏基金的赞助下,出版《黄石庵八四书集览》1000册,以广流传"
  From Google Translate: "At the invitation of the Singapore Chinese Calligraphy Association, Wong Shek An, a veteran in the Malaysian calligraphy community, will hold a personal calligraphy exhibition at the Chinese General Chamber of Commerce Exhibition Hall from April 3 to 6. In conjunction with the exhibition, the Chinese Calligraphers Association, with the sponsorship of the Ministry of Social Development and the Lee Foundation, will publish 1,000 volumes of "Collection of Huang Shi'an's Eighty-Four Books" to spread widely."
5. "黄石庵老先生千古 (黄公于1990年12月14日上午7时归道,享年88岁)" [Mr. Huang Shi'an through the ages (Huang Gong returned home at 7:00 am on 14 December 1990, at the age of 88)]. Lianhe Zaobao (in Chinese). 1990-12-15. p. 63. Retrieved 2024-04-09 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.
  The article verifies Huang Shi'an died on 14 December 1990.
6. "黄石庵书法义展即起创价文化中心举行" [Huang Shi'an calligraphy benefit exhibition to be held at Soka Cultural Center]. Nanyang Siang Pau (in Chinese). 2005-05-27. p. B10.
  The article notes: "马来西亚书艺协会顾问姚拓曾指出，黄石庵从小学习楷书，后来又专门研究魏碑、石门，也曾学习刘墉、何绍基及康有为的书体。他的作品造诣深厚，一笔一划看似漫不经意，其实是一气呵成，流露天真与自然。书画展每日开放"
  From Google Translate: "Yao Tuo, consultant of the Malaysian Calligraphy Association, once pointed out that Huang Shi'an studied regular script since childhood, and later specialized in Wei Stele and Shimen. He also studied the calligraphy styles of Liu Yong, He Shaoji and Kang Youwei. His works are profound, and each stroke may seem careless, but in fact they are completed in one go, revealing truth and nature. Calligraphy and painting exhibition open daily."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Huang Shi An (simplified Chinese: 黄石庵; traditional Chinese: 黃石庵) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any editor want to take on assessing some of these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Cunard. Mccapra (talk) 07:32, 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 no consensus‎. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Naji

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

BLP does not seem to have held any office position. Fails WP:NPOL and GNG. My WP:BEFORE search didn't bring much, which could be because of the language. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Belgium. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: joint president of a national party which has elected representatives to parliament. Could be expanded with sources from the nl:Nadia Naji, mostly 2022 sources so not associated with her current candidacy. PamD 08:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PamD: Would you mind taking a deeper look at the nl:Nadia Naji's sources again? From what I can see via google translate, they only have significant coverage surrounding her election as joint president. Apart from that, I do not see significant coverage on the other sources! Also, it would be helpful if you could mention the best three sources here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"only have significant coverage surrounding her election as joint president": well, what's the matter with that? Coverage of her as one of the two leaders of an established political party. De Standaard, which we call a "quality newspaper", has a piece about her marriage, which also suggests a level of notability. PamD 16:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PamD: Thank you, that makes two sources. If you can share one more, I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added another source. PamD 11:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, bladi.net has an inbuilt forum, which I'm not sure any news media has. It doesn't look very reliable and the article does not have significant coverage, so I'm not withdrawing. I'll just leave it to the closing admin to make a decision. Cheers Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:52, 31 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) 03:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She's the co-president of a major Belgian political party. The person who put this article up for deletion seems to be completely ignorant on Belgian politics and should refrain from putting up articles for deletion in the future on Belgian topics.

Sources:

https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/nadia-naji-covoorzitter-van-groen-het-vlaams-belang-spuwt-op-mensen-zoals-ik-waarom-zou-ik-tom-van-grieken-dan-een-hand-geven~b9d1cf65/

https://www.hln.be/binnenland/covoorzitter-groen-nadia-naji-over-premie-elektrische-wagens-geef-je-dat-geld-aan-heel-select-clubje-vlamingen-om-tesla-mee-te-kopen-of-aan-openbaar-vervoer-voor-iedereen~aab1ef67/

https://www.brusselstimes.com/897661/fight-against-the-far-right-must-be-mission-of-all-democrats-say-belgian-greens

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2023/11/04/ontbijtgesprek-nadia-naji-groen-michael-van-droogenbroeck/

https://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/politiek/nadia-naji-groen-waar-zijn-de-socialisten-in-het-asieldebat/

178.51.7.219 (talk)

Comment: Being the co-president of a major Belgian political party will obviously attract a lot of media attention, but all the sources you have shared are just interviews from routine coverage. Interviews are not independent. Notability is not inherited, so being the co-president of Groen (political party) carries no weight here. If she is as important as you claim, then there should be a lot of reliable and published third-party sources available. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:18, 14 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's even more sources (all major Belgian media, reliable, third party) outside of the five sources I already offered:

https://www.hln.be/binnenland/interview-nadia-naji-30-vlaams-blok-woog-op-mijn-jeugd-ik-kan-vbers-geen-hand-geven-zolang-zij-geen-respect-voor-mij-tonen~af213995/

https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20240414_96614061

https://www.brusselstimes.com/221713/flemish-greens-set-to-revive-the-party-with-new-leadership

https://www.dezondag.be/actua/nadia01102023/

https://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/politiek/naji-van-den-brandt-en-van-der-straeten-trekken-groene-lijst-in-brussel/

https://bx1.be/categories/news/nadia-naji-groen-sur-les-liens-avec-ecolo-entre-francophones-et-neerlandophones-on-peut-travailler-ensemble/

https://www.gva.be/cnt/dmf20231202_93310380

178.51.7.219 (talk) 178.51.7.219 (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Instead of sharing what you find on Google or in local searches, I would request you to analyze it yourself.

HLN - Interview
standaard.be - Interview
brusselstimes - No in-depth coverage about the subject
dezondag.be - Interview
knack.be - No in-depth coverage
bx1.be - Interview with no in-depth coverage on the text below.
gva.be - Interview

Being a co-president of Groen does not make her notable. Since she hasn't been elected to any office positions yet, NPOL does not apply. The Belgian news media, like any other news media in the world, are supposed to interview her or get a quote each time she makes a public appearance and these fall under routine coverage. The sources you have shared and subject at its current state does not pass the basic criteria. And the article cannot be merged as it does not pass any of the additional criteria as well. It should either be deleted, redirected to Groen or draftified. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the basic criteria:

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

She clearly passes this, with your only objection being that a lot of coverage consists of interviews (instead of profile features?), but this is simply how Belgian media often times tends to work with regards to politicians.

Furthermore [WP:BIO] clearly states:

"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."

I'd argue a bit [WP:IAR] applies as well here. Belgian political party presidents occupy such an important part in the Belgian political system that party presidents gain automatic notability similar to that of elected politicians.

The number of sources is only going to rapidly increase over the coming weeks and months, considering the upcoming elections and government formation. 178.51.7.219 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP, Jeraxmoira is saying she doesn't pass that, because these are interviews, and interviews are not independent of the subject. -- asilvering (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to what asilvering mentioned, multiple independent sources are required to pass WP:BIO, but we only have interviews here. You know she isn't notable when you are relying on WP:IAR as your last resort.

Belgian political party presidents occupy such an important part in the Belgian political system that party presidents gain automatic notability similar to that of elected politicians. - Notability is not inherited. You need to get a proposal passed in order to argue for automatic notability here.
The number of sources is only going to rapidly increase over the coming weeks and months, considering the upcoming elections and government formation. - Case of WP:NOTJUSTYET and WP:FUTURE.

Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:59, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kontakt.io

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIRS. Has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Contested draftification. Jfire (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and New York. Jfire (talk) 04:30, 1 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!} 05:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and strongly consider salting. Fails the notability guideline for companies – any apparently promising sources turned out to be trivial coverage for organisations. The creator likely merits a block as an advertising-only account, although they haven't edited in two weeks so it may be a moot point. – Teratix ₵ 11:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. All coverage is WP:ORGTRIV – can't find anything that shows true notability. Dan • ✉ 06:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the references meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:49, 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 no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biopharma LLC

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

I have previously nominated this for PROD (and also for SD, before that), but the nomination wasn't deemed uncontroversial enough and I was advised to open an AfD. The rationale is the same as in the PROD nomination:

I would like to renominate the article for deletion again, on the grounds of WP:G5. I agree that my SD nomination was too early. The only substantial edits to this page were by confirmed sockpuppets of Bodiadub and Yuraprox, and User:1sonng. I think that 1sonng is a sockpuppet of Yuraprox for reasons written in this SPI. (The said SPI had been closed because 1sonng hadn't edited for a long time.) If you disagree with my judgement of 1sonng, feel free to deprod. I do not think edits of any other users to this article are significant.

Janhrach (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Ukraine. Janhrach (talk) 08:06, 1 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!} 05:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my review of this article and its Russian and Ukrainian translations suggests it meets the notability criteria. The Ukrainian version just needs some work on its tone. If the reason for this deletion is the issues that the creator has, I agree to take the necessary actions such as deletion. But in terms of notability, there is no doubt and my comment is keep.Dejaqo (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dejaqo, it looks like you are arguing for both deletion and keep. Please bold only the option you are advocating for. Otherwise your comments just cancel each other out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion is that the article was created by banned editors, which is a policy-based reason for deletion. I used AfD because it is not completely uncontroversial that one of the substantial editors is a sockpuppet. Janhrach (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because socks have edited the article doesn't mean we automatically delete. The sock diffs are stale and can easily be fixed by going through and removing ones that are questionable, and I don't see any reason for a full-scale deletion at all. Nate • (chatter) 20:25, 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. ✗plicit 11:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Poland

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Poland. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I agree this is problematic, I think we need a mass nomination and discussion for all entries in Category:Sports broadcasting contracts by country (due to, well, what is a Sports broadcasting contract - it is a red link here, so why do we need lists of a concept we have not even defined yet or shown it is notable?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the nominator attempted that and was told that there were simply too many articles for one deletion discussion. I tend to think that it's better to try each of these list articles on their own merits. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Esolo5002 Fair enough. No merit I see here - it fails WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. In other words, it is non-notable WP:OR. 'Delete. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No merit under WP:NLIST BrigadierG (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This fails to meet the WP:LISTN criteria. Let'srun (talk) 14:46, 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 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!} 00:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kępniak, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship

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

Likely fails WP:NGEO. More details at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2024:04:07:Kępniak (osada) but TL;DR - former settlement that nothing is known about except that it existed c. 1921, we don't even know exactly where (somewhere in a particular county, probably). No evidence that it was ever permanently inhabited, it could have been a single house or business or who knows what. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 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!} 06:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Pinging editors interested in this in past similar discussions: User:FOARP, User:Ilawa-Kataka. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another example of why just having been an Osada or similar at some point doesn't mean anything, since these can be individual buildings that may never have been inhabited, including foresters lodges, farms, railway stations, etc. In this case the only source given in the article is TERYT but I don't find anything on TERYT corresponding to this under the SIMC number given on PL Wiki (1036879). Possibly there is other information out there about this place but nothing that indicates notability. FOARP (talk) 19:25, 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 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 05:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Colors Kannada

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

Fails to meet WP:NLIST as none of the referencing (here or what I find online) discuss the programming as a group. References are basic for the individual programming and mention that it airs on Colors Kannada. We have a category for "Colors Kannada original programming" which suffices and Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. CNMall41 (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. Pages like this should not exist only to list the programmes that the channel offers but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on achievements. Per nom fails WP:NLIST. RangersRus (talk) 13:29, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 05:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Girabola players during 2014 season

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

Per WP:NLIST. Random compilation of players, without references and seems to be completely out of scope. Svartner (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Angola-related deletion discussions. Svartner (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Svartner (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Svartner (talk) 04:56, 15 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary list. We don't generally have article for squad lists for one season, these would be included in team season articles if those articles are created and notable, which wouldn't be the case for this team in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Joseph, just nonsense. Giant Snowman 18:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with others, list serves no clear purpose as its own article. Halfadaniel (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is pretty indiscriminate and unsourced, delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above! Unsourced! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:47, 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 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 05:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Beach Eagle & Times

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

New, poorly referenced article that doesn't have any better sourcing on Google. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and California. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:40, 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 merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. ✗plicit 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017 Lahore suicide bombing

AfDs for this article:

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

All the coverage is from April 2017. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the last 20 discussions we have had, merge applicable content to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017, where it is already listed, without detail or sourcing. Deleting it would leave that unverified. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:26, 8 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) 02:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above and NCRIME. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:34, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Tiwari (film director)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Came here to remove a reference that falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and found that out of all the references on the page, only one would be considered reliable and it is about a film, not in-depth about the director. An online search founding nothing better. CNMall41 (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete: Although some of their later works appear to be notable, they themselves don't seem to have garnered much media attention, based on the sources of the article at least. The sources discuss about his work (film reviews), but the articles focus is not him. Obviously, sources about a film director will definitely discuss their work, but to meet notability, some of the sources need to focus mainly on the subject, then discussing their works. This is not the case here. So, delete for now. X (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT : redirecting to any of his last two sole directed films would be ideal AnkkAnkur (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Redirect so we can deal with the constant attempts to remove that redirect?? No thanks. If redirect is an acceptable WP:ATD I would recommend protecting the title from creation. Also, welcome to Wikipedia. Strange you found AfD so quickly with only your third edit. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:DIRECTOR with at least 3 notable films directed (that received coverage mentioning him) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curious which references you feel count towards notability that do not fall under NEWSORGINDIA.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. The director has not made a remarkable or significant achievement, enough to deserve attention. A search on his name would bring up more result on different Manoj Tiwari, a politician. The sources on the page do not have coverage on the director himself to pass WP:BIO. RangersRus (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, there are no much reliable secondary sources found where the subject got in-depth coverage. Grabup (talk) 07:31, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 02:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leadstart

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. References are all about the books, not the publisher. Others fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and are sponsored references (which is what brought me to the page to begin with). CNMall41 (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. CNMall41 (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sponsored articles are not reliable at all WP:SPONSORED. Grabup (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE : All the references cited are disclaimer articles non notable company trying to get notable with PR. AnkkAnkur (talk) 20:44, 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 redirect‎ to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea. ✗plicit 02:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im Shung-hwi

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

Redirect to 1966 World Cup Squad. Simione001 (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the documentary film The Game of Their Lives is cited several times. That could be potential significant coverage, no? We should check to see which ones are covered there; otherwise I worry that the majority – or even whole(?) – of the historic 1966 North Korean World Cup team could be deleted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea as we have with recent similar AFDs. Giant Snowman 18:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea – Per Giant Snowman. Svartner (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Unless the article was improved to show something, which I doubt that will happen, also suggest to go with the redirect. Govvy (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Anwegmann (talk) 02:44, 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. ✗plicit 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Byong-sam

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a football player that doesn't have context and sources per WP:SPORTSCRIT. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. A quick WP:BEFORE inclusively were databases of football. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - given that his only claim to notability is playing one match and that match itself being a friendly match not deemed official by FIFA, I'm happy with deletion if GNG is not met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:48, 21 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 01:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paek Gil-song

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a footballer that lacks sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. No context whatsoever from running news searches to validate the article doesn't meet WP:SPORTSBIO Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:53, 17 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) 22:55, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Blast (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation page that only has two topics, of the same soccer team, one of which is the active and primary (in fact replaced the former). Hatnotes are already present on both articles. Halfadaniel (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Disambiguations, and Maryland. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move a discussion to RM, because I don't think there's a PRIMARYTOPIC and the dab should probably be at base. Giant Snowman 18:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nomination, a simple hash note on the top of each article will link the two together. Govvy (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hatnotes are more than enough. Cavarrone 08:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:57, 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 page's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Air Belgium (disambiguation)

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

I can't find any other pages for Air Belgium that might add to this disambiguation page, and based on WikiNav the contemporary Air Belgium post 2016 should probably the primary, as well as being the currently operating airline. About half of the arrivals onto the historical Air Belgium page come from the contemporary one anyway. Halfadaniel (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, Disambiguations, and Belgium. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Luc Benoît

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in dept and in length for verification. Sources found are routine sport reports (announcement or results) which can NOT contribute to the notability for GNG and not ranking world top 10 in mixed martial arts (WP:NMMA]] or world top-10 in K-1 or Glory (kickboxing) or Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion. Cassiopeia talk 00:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and France. Cassiopeia talk 00:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He passes GNG because of references like this one: "Muret. Boxe : Jean-Luc Benoit prend sa retraite, chapeau l'artiste !". ladepeche.fr (in French). Retrieved 2024-04-15. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Having one sources indicating his retirement does not pass signification coverage. Need at least 5-7 sources from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in dept and in length for verification. Sources found are routine sport reports (announcement or results) which can NOT contribute to the notability for GNG and not ranking world top 10 in mixed martial arts WP:NMMA or world top-10 in K1 or Glory (kickboxing) or Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion. Cassiopeia talk 04:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - FWIW, there is no requirement of seven significant sources to pass GNG; only "multiple", which could, and sometimes has, meant two sources of depth. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant is not means 1 or 2 9couple) or 3 ( a few) or 4 (several). Cassiopeia talk 03:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NMMA leaves a fairly clear guideline for MMA fighters and I don't see that here. Dan • ✉ 06:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable as per nom. Good faith search shows fight announcements and results. Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA. Lacking significant coverage. Article seems to have been created because he fought Andrew Tate which is not enough. Lethweimaster (talk) 16:14, 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. ✗plicit 01:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Petitjean

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in dept and in length for verification. Sources found are routine sport reports (announcement or results) which can NOT contribute to the notability for GNG and not ranking world top 10 in mixed martial arts (WP:NMMA]] or world top-10 in K-1 or Glory (kickboxing) or Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion. Cassiopeia talk 00:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and France. Cassiopeia talk 00:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator, subject doe snot meet notability guidelines. Lethweimaster (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found nothing that shows WP:NKICK, WP:GNG, or WP:ANYBIO are met. I found some fight coverage and database entries, but no significant independent coverage. In fact, almost all of the coverage was either about his loss to Andrew Tate or listings of people Tate defeated. Removing Tate from my kickboxing search (tried because I found a number of people named "Vincent Petitjean") left me very few ghits. Papaursa (talk) 22:41, 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 01:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Gibson (kickboxer)

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in dept and in length for verification. Sources found are routine sport reports (announcement or results) which can NOT contribute to the notability for GNG and not ranking world top 10 in mixed martial arts (WP:NMMA]] or world top-10 in K-1 or Glory (kickboxing) or Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion. Cassiopeia talk 00:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and England. Cassiopeia talk 00:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Doesn't meet WP:NKICK and WP:GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no evidence of him meeting WP:NKICK. It also did not turn up significant independent coverage that I believe meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Papaursa (talk) 22:21, 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 01:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Cingel

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in dept and in length for verification. Sources found are routine sport reports (announcement or results) which can NOT contribute to the notability for GNG and not ranking world top 10 in mixed martial arts WP:NMMA or world top-10 in K-1 or Glory (kickboxing) or Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion. Cassiopeia talk 00:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Slovakia. Cassiopeia talk 00:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence he meets the notability criteria for kickboxers (WP:NKICK). I also didn't see significant independent coverage that would show WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO is met. Databases and fight results are normal for any fighter and his gym's website is certainly not independent. The article is also misleading when it talks about his WKF world championships, since the link is to the World Karate Federation, but his titles were from the World Kickboxing Federation--same initials but two completely different organizations. There's no evidence of him even being a karateka. It was probably used because the World Kickboxing Federation doesn't have a WP entry. Papaursa (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Some sources I found regarding this person so far, all from 2014: April, November, and December. If those are not enough to meet GNG, I would consider delete instead. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Source-1 and Source-2 does not meet the requirement as the subject only mentioned in passing mentioned (fight results are considered routine sport reports and can NOT be use to contribute to the GNG requirements). Source-3 does cover the subject in length but part of the article is not independent for it is partially an interview piece. I will leave source-3 to other editor editor to decide if the source could be contributed to GNG guidelines. To say that, if the source -3 is accepted but only only one source, it does not meet the requirment of significant coverage that the GNG requirements thus it still fails GNG. Cassiopeia talk 09:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Aside from failing WP:NKICK, I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. There are a few other routine fight results, but not much else. JTtheOG (talk) 18:41, 21 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 01:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mathetha

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in dept and in length for verification. Sources found are routine sport reports (announcement or results) which can NOT contribute to the notability for GNG and not ranking world top 10 in mixed martial arts (WP:NMMA]] or world top-10 in K-1 or Glory (kickboxing) or Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion. Cassiopeia talk 00:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Zimbabwe. Cassiopeia talk 00:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Doesn't meet WP:NKICK and WP:GNG. He's just Izzy's friend

HeinzMaster (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage appears to be databases and fight results, which are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. His highest MMA ranking at fightmatix.com was #510 which isn't close to meeting WP:NMMA's requirement of a world top 10. I also didn't find any evidence to show he meets WP:NKICK. He had only 1 fight with Glory and he lost that. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 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 redirect‎ to Sefirot. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sephiroth

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

This disambiguation page doesn't really seem to have a use, given it only contains two subjects, Sefirot and Sephiroth, which can easily have a hatnote at the top of their articles to accomplish the same disambiguation purpose. Given that Sephiroth is the name, and not Sefirot, which is only a similar sounding word, I'd suggest reclassing Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to just Sephiroth, and then keeping the hatnote that leads to Sefirot in the case that someone is looking for the concept. Overall, though, this page seems unneeded. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Religion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above and WP:ONEOTHER. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ONEOTHER and WP:DABPARTIAL. Unnecessary disambiguation page that can be resolved with a hatnote. Nothing else can logically be added to this. Agree with nom that Sephiroth is clearly the primary topic of the name so that article should be moved to Sephiroth without the disambiguator as well. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, there have been a few previous discussions relevant to explain why things are this way:

older ≠ wiser 02:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to WikiNav there is no primary topic, and in fact more clicks go to Sefirot than the FF character. Therefore despite it seeming "obvious" to video game fans, it clearly has a different meaning to the greater public. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The primary topic for Sephiroth is not Sefirot, regardless of the relative pageviews. While they may be transliterating the same Hebrew term--and I'm not sure that's actually been established without looking into the FF character--similar but different names and content is exactly what hatnotes are for, isn't it? Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica clearly says that "Sephiroth" is an alternate name for Sefirot. I think it's highly likely the FF character's name was based on said mythology, also given the naming of Jenova, which resembles a certain Biblical name of God. Knowing this, both Sefirot and the FF character are viable topics for the term, and a DAB page is required. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I also support redirect to Sefirot with a hatnote per longterm significance if that would allow for a consensus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. No primary topic so WP:ONEOTHER is satisfied by keeping the page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Sefirot per ONEOTHER. If Sefirot is indeed the primary target, per ZXC, then Sephiroth should ~~be deleted and~~ become a redirect to Sefirot. There's no policy support for a two-page DAB. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said Sefirot was the primary target, but that there was no primary, though it might be arguable that Sefirot is primary by the longterm significance criterion. In that case, though, deletion is unnecessary, a primary redirect can simply be made. The main thing I am certain of is that the video game character is not primary, so there is zero scenario in which deletion of this page is merited.

DABs can certainly be 2 pages if there is no clear meaning of the word. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, changed position. Saving thousands of people a DAB click per month is an end unto itself. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to here per nom. That's honestly the most logical choice.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kung Fu Man: Do you have a response to the WikiNav information showing that more people click through to Sefirot than to the FF character from here? Because it seems to indicate that making the character primary is the illogical choice. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: It could also be a sake of curiosity and is the top result Zx. I mean I know if I was looking up Sephiroth and the first thing I saw was that my curiosity would be piqued.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say that I had a gut feeling that 95% of the visitors to this page were actually looking for the religious term, but got distracted by the FF character and curiously clicked on that link instead. It might sound ludicrous, but if I asked for evidence to refute it, there is none. The only thing we know for certain is the relative pageviews, therefore similarly, that argument cannot be confirmed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zx you asked a question and I gave a response. Even WikiNav seems to indicate most of the results are coming from a search result. In any event, I'm standing by my decision on this. Even a basic search result on Google indicates that the fictional character is the primarily subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After thinking about this a bit, this request is in essence a request to move Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to Sephiroth although it is presented in the guise of discussing deletion of a ~~redirect~~ disambiguation page. As disambiguation is necessary, whether with through hatnotes or a disambiguation page, this page cannot be deleted until there is consensus to move established with a transparent and properly listed MOVE discussion (not through a backdoor AfD). And the watchers of Sephirot should be notified of the discussion. older ≠ wiser 17:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm also OK with redirecting this to Sephirot with a hatnote to the Final Fantasy character. However, that same redirect was previously changed to a disambiguation page in this discussion. Pinging the participants: Steel1943, Dream Focus, Havradim. older ≠ wiser 17:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. The disambiguation can be achieved with a hat note. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. The disambiguation can be achieved with a hat note. Yes, I copied Shooterwalker. The hatnote will redirect people just as easily or as well as this unnecessary twodab. ~~Unless someone can provide evidence this is an actual alternate name/spelling for Sefirot and not simply a similar word, the character should be moved over it.~~ I do see its noted as a transliteration in the lead, which my eyes refused to register earlier. -- ferret (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I guess hat note does work. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's already a hatnote, and it would make sense to have one. Basically saying "delete per WP:ONEOTHER." TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These delete arguments do not address the WP:SURPRISE issue when people - actually most searchers - are looking for a religious term and land on a Final Fantasy character. While the DAB page may not technically be required, WP:ONEOTHER is specifically for when a primary topic exists. The FF character is in no way a primary topic for this term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while Sephirot is the usual English transliteration in Jewish Kabbalah, Sephiroth is the most common transliteration in Hermetic Qabalah for the same topic. Therefore a dab page should be maintained. Alternatively, redirect to Sephirot with a hatnote for the FF character. Skyerise (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment should Sefirot be deemed the primary topic, I'm fine with Sefirot instead being the primary redirect. However, the article should have a hatnote leading to the video game character given the similar titles. In any case, the disambig page is unnecessary given this can just be handled by hatnotes. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Sephiroth to Sefirot and add a hatnote to game character. Sefirot is the primary topic per WP:PT2 due to "long-term significance". --Mika1h (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sefirot with a hatnote for Sephiroth. I feel like this isn't a Mario situation, where the character is so big that they get priority over the name. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In order to move Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to Sephiroth. Redirecting this to Sefirot because it doesn't seem that likely of a spelling mistake, and the current two disambiguation targets get around the same # of views. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, it's not a spelling error. I still think Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) should be moved here, and a hatnote can be added for Sefirot. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about what first comes to mind, but about what is correct in policy. Moving the page clearly isn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 21:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sefirot, add a hatnote for Sephiroth (Final Fantasy), I don't think Sephiroth would get priority over the name due to Sefirot having significantly more long term significance than the character.-Samoht27 (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2024
Redirect per above. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For what it's worth, straight-up "delete" is not applicable here since the title refers to at least one existent subject. (Otherwise, I do not have an opinion.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sefirot with a hatnote for Sephiroth (Final Fantasy), per Samoht27 and MKsLifeInANutshell. This is the only fully policy-compliant option, as there is a clear primary topic of this WP:TWODABS situation. BD2412 T 20:46, 24 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] ttps://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/19094837

[2] ttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022459616302675

[3] ttps://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/56368501

[4] ttps://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/162106709

[5] ttps://www.americanelements.com/gold-phosphide

[review-6] R. Prins; M. E. Bussell (2012). "Metal Phosphides: Preparation, Characterization and Catalytic Reactivity". Catalysis Letters. 142 (12): 1413–1436. doi:10.1007/s10562-012-0929-7.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical pro-Beijing camp}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of CD Travadores players}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith Presbytery, Bible Presbyterian Church (2nd nomination)}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith Presbytery, Bible Presbyterian Church (2nd nomination)}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WXAF}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugby League XIII}}