Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Explicit (talk | contribs) at 04:48, 27 April 2024 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barlaston Parish Council (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 19 April 21 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Health Clubs - Orlando Sportsplex

Genesis Health Clubs - Orlando Sportsplex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only mention in independent sources I can find are local papers discussing the facility's 2022 sale. Seems to fail WP:NORG. funplussmart (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to European Federation to preserve the history as per the rationale presented and agreed to during the discussion. Daniel (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States of Europe

United States of Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disambiguation page with a clear primary topic and one other recently created and comparatively niche topic. I propose to delete this page, redirect the title to European Federation, which covers this concept, and add a hatnote there. BD2412 T 23:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The political entity on this dab is not much more than political aedvertising. No elections, no seats. For the rest: as by the nominator. The Banner talk 00:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to European Federation as per nom. Samoht27 (talk) 20:04, 24 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! 22:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Tedja

Stephen Tedja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced BLP on a footballer that only ever played one game. In my Arabic searches, I found Al-Sharq, a trivial mention, Kooora, which is no better, and this transfer announcement, which contains no significant detail. No sign of any WP:SIGCOV or even a passing of WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Waleed

Hassan Waleed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Did have a brief professional career but can't find any clear evidence of meeting WP:GNG, which is what is required. He is not to be confused with the handball player Hassan Walid, about whom plenty of content can be found. My Arabic searches didn't yield any significant coverage about this footballer. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Eyez (disambiguation)

All Eyez (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"All Eyez" is unambiguous, see All Eyez. "All Eyes" is already addressed at the article via hatnote, and "All Eyez on Me" is a WP:PTM; see All Eyez on Me (disambiguation). 162 etc. (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: WP:PARTIAL - A link to an article title that merely contains part of the disambiguation page title where there is no significant risk of confusion between them should not be included. There is no need for a disambiguation page for this. All Eyez on Me (disambiguation) already exists. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:21, 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. Star Mississippi 14:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BoomCase

BoomCase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Overspecialized organization with no lasting public relevance: the article makes a pretty good case for the article to be treated as a flash-in-the-pan media sensation, rather than of encyclopedic notability. Sadads (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Hi Sadads,
I think it is a big stretch to say BoomCase was just a flash-in-the-pan media sensation. Lets start with some of the bigger things.
As the article states BoomCase has been featured in at least 3 published Books. The first book, Art without waste, was published in 2014, four years after it started gaining media attention. The second book Retro and Vintage Design, also published in 2014, is highlighting their contributions to the design world. The third book, Made to Last published in 2017, goes even further than these books with an in-depth multipage look at what BoomCase has done with design and innovation. If multiple authors are writing about BoomCase 7+ years after its founding, I cant see how it could be considered a "flash in the pan".
Secondly, I would argue It has even transcended into popular culture by being featured in a globally broadcasted main event WWE wrestling match - Brock Lesnar BoomBox by BoomCase | The BoomCase© , being used in commercials - BoomCase in H&R Block Commercial | The BoomCase© , in a popular Bollywood movie, Ae Dil Hai Mushkil , https://theboomcase.com/boomcase-in-bollywood-film/ , featured on the Ukraine's #1 travel show in 2015 , https://theboomcase.com/boomcase-featured-on-ukraines-1-travel-show/, and being used for art work on beer cans - https://theboomcase.com/melvin-beer-x-boomcase/ , among many other things. (Blog | The BoomCase©)
There are a lot of things one could include just by looking at their Blog (Blog | The BoomCase©) or press page (https://theboomcase.com/press/) that would counter the flash in the pan idea.
Finally, the BoomCase is still an operating company 14+ years later. Usually, one hit wonders peak and then disappear. Seeing that BoomCase is still around being featured in press, tv and used for architectural projects in multiple countries with their new speaker wall product I can't agree with the labeling of "flash-in-the-pan media sensation". MistaKoko (talk) 17:25, 15 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! 23:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just wanted to point out MistaKoko's editing since September 2019 has been virtually exclusively geared towards getting this company's article into mainspace – they almost certainly have a conflict of interest. – Teratix ₵ 14:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I appreciate your thorough perspective Sadads, I respectfully disagree with the characterization of BoomCase as an "overspecialized organization with no lasting public relevance." On the contrary, BoomCase has demonstrated enduring significance and cultural impact in the realm of portable audio technology whether you are familiar with them or not.
Firstly, BoomCase's longevity speaks volumes about its relevance and staying power. Since its inception in 2009, the company has continued to thrive and evolve, expanding its reach and influence both domestically and internationally. This sustained presence contradicts the notion of being a mere "flash-in-the-pan" phenomenon.
Furthermore, BoomCase's contributions extend beyond mere media sensation. The company has been involved in numerous art installations and collaborations, showcasing its innovative approach to design and technology. Its products have been sought after by a diverse clientele, including celebrities and influencers, further underscoring its cultural significance and relevance.
Additionally, BoomCase's impact on popular culture cannot be overlooked. From its presence in mainstream media to its integration into various events and settings, BoomCase has become synonymous with style, innovation, and quality in the portable audio market.
In light of these considerations, I believe that BoomCase warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. I personally hate that a company can exist for this long and have physical impact on communities and still have to fight for a basic Wiki page like they don't exist, they do exist and have accomplished more than most companies. They deserve a page. Mrironmonkey (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using LLMs to write your comments is highly disrespectful to other editors. I trust this !vote will be given zero weight. – Teratix ₵ 02:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using LLM's is going to be inevitable when you suffer from dyslexia, how does Wikipedia plan on functioning in the singularity next year or the next decade if you can't communicate clearly? I understand you may be resistant to AI right now, but it's going to be a huge part of our lives whether you like it or not. It's like being mad I used spellcheck. Address the points I made in the original post, and not something irrelevant to the argument.
I stand by my original point that if you lived in Northern/Southern California and you are in this space you have heard of Boomcase, and they deserve to be recognized in some capacity. Mrironmonkey (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you may be resistant to AI right now, but it's going to be a huge part of our lives whether you like it or not Cut it with this patronising, condescending attitude, you don't have a clue what I think about AI beyond my specific view that it's incredibly rude to generate arguments with the click of a button and expect real humans to invest their own time in debunking them, especially when said arguments have nothing to do with how we actually determine whether an article is warranted. – Teratix ₵ 11:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete name-checks some impressive-sounding sources, but they either only discuss the company in passing or seem to be advertorials rather than genuinely independent coverage. – Teratix ₵ 02:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editor Mrironmonkey is a WP:SPA who has made no other editor to Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 06:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete References seems to particularly promotional, many offering product for sale failing WP:SIRS and breaking the Terms of use, or a passing mentions of type that fail WP:CORPDEPTH or the type of PR that are paid placements by the company that fail WP:ORGIND. Either way, the whole thing is a crock and straight up advert that should be G11'd from the get go. It currently fails WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14. scope_creepTalk 06:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On that top of that it was declined multiples times from AFC, before being accepted by a editor who is now checkuser blocked. The whole thing is absolute crock. scope_creepTalk 06:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are not even reading the sources. How are these passing mentions? What proof do you have that the sources are PR? You cant just make claims when you have no idea what would have caused certain websites to write about a product. Just because a product received significant coverage doesn't make it paid. BoomCase is very small company of 5 or less people that started out by going viral I doubt they had money try to pay all these newspapers, books, and blogs to cover them. Come on now.
https://www.cnet.com/news/its-a-boom-box-its-a-vintage-suitcase-no-its-a-boomcase/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boomcase-brings-back-the-boombox-using-old-suitcases_n_914933
https://www.gq.com/story/family-ties-and-a-summer-slam-dunk-ambsn-and-boomcase-by-mr-simo
MistaKoko (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These are UPE editors. We can go through the references if need be. scope_creepTalk 06:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A more thorough review of the best sources MistaKoko has identified on their talk page:
  1. CNET: A 400-word article is certainly significant coverage. My concern is it is not independent coverage. The author opens by noting I got in touch with the company's owner, Dominic Odbert, to learn more about his designs – i.e. the article is heavily dependent on Odbert himself for information. My concerns are heightened when I read the second paragraph: Each BoomCase [link to store] is a unique creation, so if you see one on Odbert's Web site that catches your fancy, don't think about it too long, because once it's sold, there's never going to be another one exactly like it. This reads like a sales appeal, not independent analysis. Ditto the last paragraph: Prices range from under $300 to $4,000, but the most popular models cost $500. That sounds very reasonable for hand-crafted, made-in-the-States audio designs.
  2. The second source is hosted by HuffPost, but scrolling to the bottom reveals it was written for AOL Small Business, which appears to be a form of trade publication focused on entrepreneurs. We have a presumption against using trade publications as evidence for notability. It also has a similar problem to the CNET source where much of its content appears to depend on information from Odbert himself.
  3. California Home Design again has similar problems to CNET where virtually all the content is either Odbert's own quotes or information provided by Odbert, and ends by calling for readers to Check out all that’s happening in BoomCase news on Odbert’s blog [link] and all BoomCases available for sale at his web store. [link]
  4. GQ is an interview with Odbert and his cousin, again with no independent analysis beyond their own responses to the questions.
  5. MELO is again mostly interview content providing no independent analysis beyond Odbert's responses. The little original writing is highly promotional, saying the Odbert brothers are changing the speaker game for good and call each Boomcase ... an extension of its owner's creative spirit. – Teratix ₵ 09:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Thanks for taking the time to look closer at some of the sources. While I understand what you are saying, the thing is most articles like this are going to be very similar to this no matter what. Many reviews, interviews at about a certain product or company are going to include links to where to buy a product, list prices or write what they think is good or bad about it. Just because it does so doesn't mean its not an independent article. You would be hard pressed to find a review or write up on a product that does not include its price. I understand if these articles were about a large speaker company such as JBL or Pioneer and then trying to say these are all paid PR or non independent but being that BoomCase is a very small company its highly doubtful they had anything to do with the articles. It seems to me the viral nature of their story/product helped them receive so much press. There are so many things I Wish to cite from their press page but they are unfortunately from magazines that are not available online. (Press | The BoomCase©)
    Also this has now become an argument started by Sadads about a "flash in the pan" sensation to an argument about references. I believe I should have the opportunity to find and improve the sources instead of a complete deletion. I think have shown it is not a flash in the pan by my first reply to Sadads.
    There are still the three published books cited that I would like to use to write a better article. But im still not sure how to do this since I cant find the txt online other than a few images from BoomCases press page, but even then its not the full txt.
    This is from above but just to show again the books - The first book, Art without waste, was published in 2014, four years after it started gaining media attention. The second book Retro and Vintage Design, also published in 2014, is highlighting their contributions to the design world. The third book, Made to Last published in 2017, goes even further than these books with an in-depth multipage look at what BoomCase has done with design and innovation. If multiple authors are writing about BoomCase 7+ years after its founding, I cant see how it could be considered a "flash in the pan". -
    I have asked for help with this but have not gotten any unfortunately. I will keep trying.
    Thanks again. MistaKoko (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For (hopefully) more input on the sourcing, which is being strongly questioned as to its contribution to our SIGCOV requirements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many reviews, interviews at about a certain product or company are going to include links to where to buy a product, list prices or write what they think is good or bad about it. Just because it does so doesn't mean its not an independent article. I'm not saying the articles aren't independent because they link to where to buy a BoomCase or list its price. I'm saying they aren't independent because they contain virtually no information or analysis that isn't either (a) directly attributable to Odbert (b) obviously dependent on a narrative provided by Odbert or (c) obvious sales copy. See WP:ORGIND for more about what "independent source" means in the context of companies.
As for the books: Art Without Waste just has pictures of two BoomCases with no information beyond bare captions; Retro and Vintage Design manages a bare six sentences; Made to Last... OK, that one might actually qualify as a decent source. But we need multiple independent sources to meet our notability guidelines. I'll grant you've got one. – Teratix ₵ 07:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking through it more - However I think its hard to say all the references are obvious sales copy or dependent on Odbert. I doubt all them contacted BoomCase to write up their articles and again if you are writting about a product there is usually some sort of pitch about buying it or not. Also, Art without waste is 4 images not 2. Retro and Vintage design - It seems that if a large publisher includes you in a book with a two page feature of product that its a bit notable. I have also seen online there is more written about BoomCase in other parts of the Book but its on Instagram and I know that is consider a good place to source...
You also mentioned the Cnet article could be a source...
but You say -... This reads like a sales appeal, not independent analysis. Ditto the last paragraph: Prices range from under $300 to $4,000, but the most popular models cost $500. That sounds very reasonable for hand-crafted, made-in-the-States audio designs. The author IS giving their independent analysis by saying the price sounds reasonable for a made in America audio design. Thats their opinion and analysis. Do you think BoomCase told them to say this or something?
I also translated another article - Clublife Magazine 1.2013 by Clipboard Media - Issuu - 200+ words and seems independent. MistaKoko (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Tera's analysis of the sources, fails WP:NCORP. While secondary coverage of the company in generally reliable sources certainly exists, most of it isn't independent or significant enough. Mooonswimmer 14:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the fair comment and "weak delete" and not a mean attack like the first two commentors did initially. This doesn't even include all they wrote on my talk page or the conflict of interest noticeboard... I appreciate it.
    I translated this https://issuu.com/clipboardpublishing/docs/clublife_magazine_1_2013/14 but its probably too late now. Hopefully I can keep working on this page somehow and try again later. MistaKoko (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After considering all the arguments and analysis above and the history of this article on Wiki, it does not pass WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 13:12, 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.

Mehr Hassan

AfDs for this article:
Mehr Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:Notability Wikibear47 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has been in multiple films that seem to have wikipedia articles of their own. As per: WP:ARTIST, criteria 3, that should probably be enough.
also, seems like this is the 3rd nomination. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Music, Fashion, Pakistan, Punjab, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The newspapers used now in the article for sourcing are all there is for this person; I don't see notability beyond the local level. I can't find any mention of them otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact she has been seen on multiple movies which has a wikipedia page doesn't qualify her to have a wikipedia page. This is just like the case of Lucy Grantham (2nd nomination). The subject Mehr Hassan fails WP:GNG. Her first AFD which was keep was just a two vote of keep which was still saying because she appeared in a movie. No independent reliable source, No award won or being nominated as an actress or dancer. I really don't see anything notable. --Meligirl5 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable films. The Louisville Courier article too makes a case for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does having just one reliable source qualifies a person of having a Wikipedia page?

Hassan started her dancing career as a stage performer in the United States.

How do we believe such statement with no reliable source.?--Meligirl5 (talk) 00:45, 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! 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. WP:NACTOR appears to hold here for now, although perhaps the articles for the films she starred should be reviewed for their notability. The bottom line is that long as those films are notable, she is, if barely. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 16:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm familiar with a "Soft Delete" but can anyone define a "Soft Keep" for me? Do you mean "Weak Keep"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 27 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, Daniel (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The subject's claim of appearing in numerous films lacks verifiable evidence, thus failing to meet WP:ARTISTS. The available coverage appears to be routine per WP:ROTM and lacks the depth required by WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Courier-Journal article wasn't routine, and by what sources we have, Hassan was in these films, noting that the sourcing of the related film articles was light (thus my 'Weak Keep'). I suspect however that her appearance in some of them was exaggerated to make it appear she was a lead when she wasn't. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 16:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Al-Kuhaili

Abdulrahman Al-Kuhaili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have Soccerway and Football Database to confirm that he exists but his career only lasted a few minutes. I can find Arriyadiyah but it's only a trivial mention. No evidence of WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

Article can be restored if a Merge is an outcome editors want. For now, if you are seeking a Merge or Redirect, please list the Merge target article in your nomination statement. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign interventions by Russia

Foreign interventions by Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Putting this up for deletion because the scope of the list does not seem consistent with the style or content of lists of this type in other parts of the wiki. Feels like it should be merged into something else -- like the articles about the Russian Federation. Sadads (talk) 18:14, 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! 23:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Independently of this AFD closure, an individual editor can propose a Redirect from this page title but it won't be an outcome of this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chadley Wenn

Chadley Wenn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Griffons (rugby union) where the subject is already mentioned. ~Kvng (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see this as a suitable redirect, as linking to a current squad (which he might not be part of next season) isn't a good long term option in my opinion. If there was a list of Griffons players article I'd suggest that, but we don't have such lists. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a trade off between supporting a possible search term today and creating future astonishment. I'm going to leave my !vote as it is because right now I care more about today. ~Kvng (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to settle view on a possible Redirect as an ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet GNG, and no suitable longterm redirects are available. JoelleJay (talk) 21:31, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York Software Industry Association

New York Software Industry Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be defunct - no recent activity - can't find anything after 2007 - no notable references online. Newhaven lad (talk) 18:20, 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! 23:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. A search at the New York Secretary of State https://apps.dos.ny.gov/publicInquiry/ says that the association still exists. The archived versions of the association's website include pages that redirect to another group, New York Technology Council, Inc., which later merged into NY Tech Alliance, Inc. https://www.nytech.org/ Perhaps references exist for NY Tech Alliance and its events, including NY Tech Meetup. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non article. It says nothing and has no refs. 25 edits in 19 years, so could have been prodded away. Desertarun (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. There is no deletion rationale provided here in the nomination statement but opinion is unanimous that this article should be deleted so that is the outcome of this two week discussion period. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erento

Erento (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Someone previously attempted Wikipedia:PROD, but I thought we should do AFD instead User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:28, 13 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 13. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 18:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Sawerchessread, that someone was me, and you could have told me. I don't know why we are here, and you didn't give a deletion rationale. You also didn't give any actual reason for removing the PROD--this is just an extra layer of work. Delete: not a notable outfit. Likely COI/UPE creation with promotional contributions. In the past it's had some sourcing, but if you look carefully those are really press releases in things that aren't independent publications. My PROD rationale said "Pretty obvious COI creation. Lack of secondary sources, no credible claims of notability, really just product placement", and I stand by that. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    apologies. did not know the protocol. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't think it can meet current standards wrt. NCORP. Other issues mentioned by Drmies are also persuasive. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Desertarun (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Thank you for compiling the source analysis table. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vương Xuân Nguyên

Vương Xuân Nguyên (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

was previously pushed for WP:PROD due to sockpuppet activities, but think we should have an AfD for it at least User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment apparently deleted twice on Vietnamese wikipedia: https://vi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V%C6%B0%C6%A1ng_Xu%C3%A2n_Nguy%C3%AAn&action=edit&redlink=1 User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article is created by a sock related to a very big PR ring with over 100 confirmed socks (see article talk page for more info). This person has no real achievement, so he's not notable. He likely paid this PR service to have his own article on Wikipedia. For your info, news article can be bought in Vietnam. All the sources are likely bought. It's a common tactic in Vietnam for PR. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:24FB:4C07:F5C1:5E5F (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This IP address belongs to Nguyentrongphu, who was previously banned for the reason "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, following ANI threads". On Vietnamese Wikipedia, instead of preserving articles, he deletes articles or reverts edits that he deems to be violations without providing valid evidence. Conversely, he adds spam links to Wikipedia. See 1, 2, 3, 4 203.205.26.11 (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia's policy, all articles/edits from socks must be deleted and reverted. Admin Nguyentrongphu did nothing wrong here. There is a reason that all the other Vietnamese admins are ignoring this sock. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2C09:4A70:C286:9B2F (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This IP belongs to a very big PR ring. See here. This ring has over 100 socks and has created hundreds of PR articles. We have deleted all of them after they were caught. Everything this sock says cannot be trusted (words taken out of context, misleading statements, false accusations and etc). Anyways, we should actually focus on the article's notability instead of throwing false, random accusation around. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2C09:4A70:C286:9B2F (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin Nguyentrongphu is the most anti-admin we have in Vietnamese Wikipedia for more than 10 years. Everyone in Vietnamese Wikipedia knows this. Claiming that he supports PR activities is laughable. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2C09:4A70:C286:9B2F (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "WP:SOCKPUPPET accusation", he has no specific technical evidence, but only his own inferences. See: 5 203.205.26.11 (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last check was successful. Current check is on-going. The checkuser is currently busy. Plenty of evidences were provided, what are you talking about? The fact is that this article is created by 2 different socks from the same person. User:Cuongpham8 is confirmed to be a sock. You're a sock too. I'm not a sock. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2C09:4A70:C286:9B2F (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are a sock of Nguyentrongphu, who was previously banned for the reason "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, following ANI threads". 203.205.26.11 (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know a difference between a ban and a block? Nguyentrongphu is never banned. You're a sock related to the PR ring. Nobody is consistently defending this article like you do. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2C09:4A70:C286:9B2F (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Vuong Xuan Nguyen, this individual has ample evidence to demonstrate his prominence. A Google search using the keyword "Vuong Xuan Nguyen" yields approximately 37,500,000 results (0.28 seconds). See: 1 203.205.26.11 (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
37 million results lol? Most of the results are not even the same person. If he's notable, why the need to pay for a PR firm to create an article for him on Wikipedia? 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2C09:4A70:C286:9B2F (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:GOOGLEHITS. Read our notability guideline here. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The results of the review by a reviewer have repeatedly confirmed that the accounts above are not sockpuppet activities. See: 1 112.218.57.237 (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently no technical evidence so far, but there is strong behavioral evidence (Wikipedia:DUCK). User:Monpham (a very new account) recreated the exact same article created by a confirmed sock. Monpham also uploaded the picture in the article to Commons. Also, the sockpuppet investigation is on-going and not done yet. P/S: why are you using a proxy from Italy? 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:E565:345:8F07:4EDD (talk) 10:54, 17 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! 23:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'd really like to see at least 1 non-Vietnamese source. All of the sources listed do not count towards GNG, and any other Vietnamese sources are likely to tell the same tale. According to Telecommunications in Vietnam, "The government controls all broadcast media exercising oversight through the Ministry of Information and Communication." I will be abbreviating Ministry of Information and Communications as MIC. I'm reading similar statements in other articles about journalism in Vietnam as well. Because of this, the independence and reliability of all Vietnamese sources about this subject is harder to determine, as the MIC may have influence or control over the publication. Because the subject is associated with state-owned/controlled areas, this poses a concern to me about determining notability. This viwiki page is a viwiki listing of official sources and includes which ones are directly state-owned - I will be abbreviating this page as VIRSPS, as in WP:RSPS. Below is my source assessment–it is a bit lengthy.
Source assessment table: prepared by User:WhoAteMyButter
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://vanhoavaphattrien.vn/vuong-xuan-nguyen-a18339.html No May be under MIC control; MIC permit or similar governmental control No Seems to be a PR article, plus other articles suggest it may be a mouthpiece. Yes ✘ No
https://baoquangninh.vn/nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-nhung-dau-an-tren-chang-duong-20-nam-hoat-dong-bao-chi-3273185.html No MIC concerns. No No author information, MIC concerns. Yes ✘ No
https://kinhtevadubao.vn/nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-nghe-bao-la-mot-su-tinh-co-da-lam-thay-doi-cuoc-doi-3095.html No Source is Journal of Economics and Forecast - Ministry of Planning and Investment No Direct government source, likely to be no editorial oversight Yes ✘ No
https://www.doisongvaphattrien.vn/mot-so-bai-viet-va-tu-lieu-ve-nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-a38874.html No Unclear author, only "PV". No Author, cites Wikipedia, and then dumps 55 links with nothing further (I am not going to source assess 55 links.) No One circular paragraph. ✘ No
https://ngoisao.net.vn/tap-chi-khoa-hoc-phat-trien-nong-thon-viet-nam-gap-mat-than-mat-va-khai-but-dau-xuan-a1407.html No Author is "Huy Hoang", article contains a lot of interviews. Source seems to state "Journal of Development Science Vietnam Rural Areas (PHANO Magazine) has done well its role as the mouthpiece of the Central Vietnam Rural Development Science Association" [translated]. Likely to not be independent. No MIC. ~ Source is more about the meeting, but does include some information on subject. ✘ No
https://www.nguoiduatin.vn/ra-mat-chuyen-trang-hoi-nhap-cua-tap-chi-dien-tu-van-hoa-va-phat-trien-a522998.html No Seems to be a direct mouthpiece. No No information about author. No Only in passing mention. ✘ No
https://tienphong.vn/chuyen-gia-sinh-vat-canh-ven-man-nhung-giao-dich-lan-tien-ty-su-that-bat-ngo-post1257714.tpo No VIRSPS, all of article content seems to be an interview or similar. No No information on author. Yes ✘ No
https://vtv.vn/kinh-te/dua-nhau-bia-gia-tren-troi-nguoi-choi-lan-khien-thi-truong-nao-loan-2020071010124399.htm No VIRSPS No Same author as above, most of content seems to be interview and may be copy of above source. Yes ✘ No
https://baohagiang.vn/rao-vat/202312/nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-tu-chu-duyen-voi-bao-chi-den-chu-tam-voi-nghe-sinh-vat-canh-7cb3a05/ No MIC concerns. No Seems to be entirely PR, unclear author (author listed seems to name a group). Yes ✘ No
https://baomoi.com/gap-nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-tren-nhung-trang-viet-moi-c47667935.epi No Copy of first source, footer also says "BAOMOI synthesizes and arranges information automatically by computer program". No No ✘ No
https://dangcongsan.vn/thoi-su/le-tang-cap-cao-nha-bao-lao-thanh-do-phuong-457515.html No Seems to be mouthpiece. No MIC, mouthpiece. No Does not mention subject. ✘ No
https://hoinhap.vanhoavaphattrien.vn/nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-voi-bao-doi-song-va-phap-luat-a11039.html No Same concerns as 1st source. No Yes ✘ No
https://kinhtevadubao.vn/nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-duoc-tang-ky-niem-chuong-vi-su-nghiep-bao-chi-viet-nam-23064.html No Same concerns as 3rd source. No Yes ✘ No
https://phapluatkinhdoanh.vn/index.php/nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-duoc-tang-ky-niem-chuong-vi-su-nghiep-bao-chi-viet-nam-a2528.html No Interview, MIC concerns. No Author is Bach Hein, see 'baohagiang' source. Yes ✘ No
https://baodongkhoi.vn/gap-nha-bao-vuong-xuan-nguyen-tren-nhung-trang-viet-chan-thuc-04122023-a123269.html No Copy of 2nd source. No Yes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
As such, I don't see general notability. He may be important in official Vietnamese government inner-circles, but as far as I can tell, he doesn't meet GNG. More Vietnamese sources aren't going to help because of independence concerns. As for WP:BEFORE, I can't find any sources that are (a) not based in Vietnam and subject to MIC, or (b) about the subject. WhoAteMyButter (🌷talk│🌻contribs) 05:26, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish exonyms

AfDs for this article:
Turkish exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've been everywhere, man. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm also nominating this, for the same reason. Note, there was a previous discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish names for cities, towns, villages and geographical locations in Bulgaria in 2008.

List of Turkish exonyms in Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Turkish exonyms in Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PepperBeast (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If there were anything to say about the exonyms, it might be worth having. —Tamfang (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was going to urge the nominator to additionally nominate all or most of the exonym lists they could find (such as German exonyms and plenty others), but apparently such a discussion already took place here a few weeks ago and resulted in no consensus. I don't see a specific argument made for the Turkish exonyms here. Therefore, I don't also find it logical to single out one of the lists. It would be much better if the List of Turkish exonmys in Bulgaria is discussed as part of another AfD. That discussion would not likely justify the deletion of a much more general page as Turkish exonyms. The Turkish exonmys in Bulgaria could be more easily deleted based on WP:TNT as it is poorly sourced or a sound rationale. (Just referencing a 15-year-old discussion is not enough.) Aintabli (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not singling out. I'm just doing this at a slower pace. The original AFD got no consensus a least in part because there was too much there for one discussion. Sheesh, I'm beginning to feel like I can do no right, here. PepperBeast (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The mass deletion proposal failed because not all of the exonym lists are equally trivial. French has already been renominated, and I expect others to follow. —Tamfang (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice to see some examples of the non-trivial exonym lists for contrast. Aintabli (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure there was any such sortening, though you can certainly read through the previous discussion. I'm going to be doing some more re-nominating, but I'm conscious of both the possibility of overwhelming the AFD-sphere with too many requests and restraints on my own time, so I'm absolutely not going to be trying to blast them all out at once. PepperBeast (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : I can't say I have a strong feeling about the removal of the lists of exonyms, which was covered by the discussion in March. But seeing that this nomination currently singles out one of the lists for no reason and makes no strong points, I am against deletion. As I have pointed out, it should be discussed as part of a bundled nomination with all the other exonym lists. After a few weeks or months, the AfD from March may be followed up with an identical bundled nomination to form a solid consensus. Aintabli (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "strong point" is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Additional points are that this is poorly ref'd and that much of the content isn't even exonyms; it's just Turkish spellings of place names. PepperBeast (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Current state of the article and its content are irrelevant when it comes to AfDs unless it’s WP:TNT. NOTDICTIONARY was also brought up in the previous discussion, which lacked consensus. The lack of a strong point is mainly rooted in how there is no demonstration of the list’s triviality. Examples of lists to keep could be helpful for example. Aintabli (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: delete both as just what you would find in a dictionary Chidgk1 (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Mccapra, Tamfang, Aintabli, and Chidgk1: I added List of Turkish exonyms in Greece to this discussion. PepperBeast (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just needs editing clean-up but there are a multitude of sources on this including books and from the UN, and it doesn't really fall into dictionary land. [1] [2], and there are probably additional sources in the Turkish. This needs cleanup, but not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 17:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But the articles don’t exist on Turkish Wikipedia as far as I can tell Chidgk1 (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Turkish Wikipedia is in a horrible state even when it comes to Turkish-related topics. Regardless, it's not relevant. Aintabli (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see @Ushuaia1: has put a lot of effort in but as the Greece one has been unsourced for so many years I think that should also be deleted. I suggest Ushuaia1 publish the ex-Ottoman names such as Greece and Bulgaria outside Wikipedia as original research so they could explain their methods - for example if they talked to local people they could detail their recordings or correspondance or whatever as annexes to their paper. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is clearly a personal work, in the form of an unwelcome scientific paper, which, though, lacks the necessary attributes for Wikipedia inclusion; mainly, independent notability. The term itself is not encountered in most of the sources cited. A clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS full of slippery verbiage, of which the project is more than tired. -The Gnome (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It's useful to have it here!"; "Of course, it's notable!"; "There are certainly sources out there!": None of these 'arguments' are acceptable in an AfD discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 11:31, 26 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! 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per WP:TNT, this is an unsourced WP:OR dictionary, most of the items do not have articles, but when they do the wl'd article rarely provides referenced support for the entry. TNT will provide an editor the opportunity to build a sourced article without this baggage.  // Timothy :: talk  00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only per WP:TNT. Upon rethought, I can only say that this should best be deleted to avoid wasting time by trying to source the overwhelming majority of the list entries. I am not against its recreation, and my previous points largely stand. Aintabli (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I now see a consensus to delete these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French exonyms

French exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

List of French exonyms for Dutch toponyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of French exonyms for German toponyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of French exonyms for Italian toponyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Europe. PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT, not to mention being entirely unsourced. ---- D'n'B-t -- 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep this was just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago, and has been re-nominated by the same nominator. Definitely a WP:TROUT or possibly even sanctions may be in order. SportingFlyer T·C 18:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago
    That's... that's the point of re-nominating. To... create consensus where it wasn't possible to do so before. BrigadierG (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the mass deletion of all exonym listicles failed to reach consensus, so they are now listed separately. —Tamfang (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Well, that's still ridiculous then. The UN has a working group specifically on French exonyms, as does the French government, showing this is a valid encyclopedic topic. I don't know how any of you are getting to WP:NOTDICTIONARY here - these are not definitions or dictionary entries but rather valid lists - and WP:LISTCRUFT is simply an "i don't like it" argument. SportingFlyer T·C 19:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, an article on the working group might be interesting. But how is an endless list of French words for places more worthy than a list of French words for spices or engine parts? —Tamfang (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    or Bosnian names of primate families —Tamfang (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that link, the author refers to the project as an attempt to create a database. Sure would be a shame if there was a policy called WP:NOTDATABASE. BrigadierG (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a database, though, it's a valid WP:LIST. SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In most of our lists, most of the entries have their own articles. Is there any prospect of an article about the French word for Bangkok? —Tamfang (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NLIST specifically says the entries in the list do not need to be notable enough for their own article, just that the group or set is notable. A simple Google scholar search lends more credibility to the fact this set is notable, such as [3] [4] [5], including (but not linking here) two articles on French exonyms for Polish place names. SportingFlyer T·C 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    … I meant to add: no consensus because not all such listicles are equally trivial, i.e., some do more than belabor the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words (including placenames) to its own phonology and orthography. —Tamfang (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite true. There was no consensus because there was simply too much in the nom for one discussion. My bad. So, I'm going back through the area in a more rational way. Re-listing when no consensus emerges is what's supposed to happen. PepperBeast (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with nominator, this is a case of WP:NOTDICTIONARY BrigadierG (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. Please include a link to any previous AFDs concerning these articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 20 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, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's still notable, there are plenty of sources available, needs improvement, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you make that more specific? Notable why, what sort of improvement? —Tamfang (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article needs to be better sourced, but there's plenty of sources available, especially if you search in French. Such as this. Most of the !voters in this discussion are ignoring the fact this can be better sourced, which is equivalent to notability. SportingFlyer T·C 21:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it? Are dictionary entries notable? – That pdf is roughly a French analogue of Toponymy of England, and I would be happy to see analogous articles about various countries, but it is not about exonyms. —Tamfang (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, which this article obviously is (It's not a WP:GLOSSARIES, as it just provides straight translations between word). Also, clearly, any WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:JUSTNOTABLE are unhelpful in this discussion. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a list that violates WP:NOTDICTIONARY, same holds for the child articles. It would be absolutely cool to have an article about the topic of French exonyms. Certainly meets GNG, many sources that would explain how French exonyms historically evolved, the phonological challenges when toponym get nativized etc. But this article has nothing, rien about that. It's just an indiscriminate list of toponyms. –Austronesier (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had not noticed the child articles. I would not remove lists of German names for places that were formerly in German territory, but a corresponding French list would be pretty short! —Tamfang (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Agletarang (talk) 09:28, 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.

MobiBLU DAH-1500i

MobiBLU DAH-1500i (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable – many MP3 players that have been reviewed by "big" magazine websites like CNET do not (and should not) have their own articles. The articles nominated just contain technical specification of the product (or products, if you consider them to be separate).

The only reason for notability seems to be the claim that this is the "world's smallest" MP3 player, but the citation for that goes to a PCMag page which says "... billed as the "world's smallest" digital audio player, and we're pretty sure that's true" which is not any form of proof of the claim. Furthermore, "billed" seems to imply that these are the words of the manufacturer only, and indeed I have not been able to find any sort of official confirmation of the claim. AlexGallon (talk) 21:51, 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! 22:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz – I left a message over at your talk page related to this nomination. AlexGallon (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1, 2, 3, 4 A gadget that was widely reviewed at the time of its release from major pubs and had lasting coverage. Tech products's notability largely depends on reviews. Not every MP3 players in the market get reviewed from big tech pubs. The only reason for notability seems to be the claim that this is the "world's smallest" MP3 player, but the citation for that goes to a PCMag page which says "... billed as the "world's smallest" digital audio player, and we're pretty sure that's true" which is not any form of proof of the claim. Here's a more appropriate source that independently states the claim: The bite-size MobiBLU DAH-1500i is the smallest, most impressively full-featured Flash player we've seen yet. - PCMag UK, Jun 27, 2018. X (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of thousands of mp3 players. Refs don't say anything, they're mundane reviews. Desertarun (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One that has been independently called the world's smallest MP3 player. Notable lasting coverage exists for this particular player, outside typical routine coverage. X (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 28 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) 05:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify‎. Consensus exists not to retain the article at this time in mainspace, and there is a) some support for draftication over delete, b) comments from delete !voters which indicate their acceptance of draftication as an alternative, and c) no consensus opposing draftification as a valid AtD. Hence, draftify it is. Daniel (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chance Cowell

Chance Cowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see this article as WP:TOOSOON, as I can only find substantive coverage from the Carese Courier (three articles) and a few Spanish-language sites about him choosing Mexico over the United States. He is 15 years old, has never played a professional match, and only represents Mexico at the under-15 level. I think this article should be draftified, but I understand if the vote is to keep it. I'm curious what consensus will be on this. Anwegmann (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Anwegmann (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [6], [7], and [8] among many more Spanish and English sources. Young player with ongoing pro and international career (already signed pro contractw ith senior Major League Soccer SJ Earthquakes with many sources already. Should be a clear keep if not a draftify at the very worst. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the nom, I'm a bit torn here, as Cowell has never played a pro game and his international career is at the under-15 level. As such, he is not remotely notable as a footballer. I wonder if his current fame, and thus the focus on him, is entirely the result of his brother's success at Chivas and with the United States senior team. I ask myself: Would Chance Cowell be acknowledged at all if his brother wasn't Cade Cowell? And I think the answer is "No, he wouldn't." I think a drafitify is the most appropriate move here, but I nominated the article because I think there's is a fruitful discussion to have. Anwegmann (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He has evidently performed well enough for his youth teams to receive a senior professional San Jose Earthquakes contract at the age of fifteen... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that means nothing until he appears for the team. What I'm saying is that this is an example of WP:TOOSOON—the player clearly shows potential of being notable in his own right, and may become independently notable in the future, but as of right now, he's not notable enough to deserve his own article based on three caps for an under-15 national team two years ago and a professional contract, but no appearances, for an MLS club. Almost every source of any substance is predicated on him being Cade Cowell's brother. It's not a wasted article, and your work in creating it is justified, generally. But it needs to be draftified until he can "stand on his own," as it were. Anwegmann (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are not new. They were already present when the AFD was created. As such, nothing changes my mind. GiantSnowman 18:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether he ought to get coverage or not isn't really relevant, he's just getting it. So therefore passes GNG. We shouldn't waste time imagining coverage in a world where his brother isn't Cade. Ortizesp (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:YOUNGATH appears to disagree with your reasoning—coverage as individuals that is not local or routine. Almost all English-language coverage is local from his hometown and a large portion of the cited Spanish-language sources are game play summaries, and thus are WP:ROUTINE. By your logic, if they had a random sister who got coverage because she's their sister, she deserves an article. Anwegmann (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources mentioned above fail YOUNGATH, and additionally do not establish him as notable independent of his brother. JoelleJay (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP, even if assuming that he passes WP:BARE, we always err on the side of deleting the articles of kids who are actors or athletes, until they are at least 17 or 18. I do not oppose a userfication. Bearian (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked up to see if he actually did have a professional contract as I could have sworn 16 was the age limit for professionalism under FIFA rules (or that California had child labour rules). The Ceres Courier source does say that. But what exactly is so remarkable about this? He's 15 and playing for an academy and an under-15 national team. How many other kids are doing that? I think we should only have articles about youth players who are doing something extraordinary, like Da'vian Kimbrough actually playing a pro game at 13 - for a team that Chance Cowell didn't do so at. I think some on football Wikipedia are currently stretching WP:GNG with younger relatives of footballers, who get a lot of cheap filler coverage but haven't done anything in their own right. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or merge with Cade_Cowell#Personal_life. He likely will be notable, but he isn't now as it's too soon. Either outcome preserves the history for a spinout when he does meet the criteria. Star Mississippi 00:30, 20 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! 22:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in South Korea

Sports broadcasting contracts in South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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. The only source are simply announcment, just not worthy of an encyclopaedic value. Those arguing for a keep must be advised of WP:USEFUL. I also advise those to create a Fandom page for your favorite sport if you want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 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! 22:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A jumble of sports contracts, not encylopedic or maintainable. Desertarun (talk) 11:13, 27 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! 23:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here.  // Timothy :: talk  22:10, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mazakuka mosque shooting

Mazakuka mosque shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable crime, no sustained coverage beyond the sequence of events. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the political situation in Nigeria, this almost certainly can be selectively merged/redirected somewhere (and given the relatively high death toll and the fact it's terrorism I feel it should be noted, somewhere, though not as its own article) however there is not enough detail in the article itself for me to suggest a target. Hm. I'll look into that later. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No lasting coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. Seventeen deaths is significant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of deaths is not a criterion for notability and needs lasting coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Say that about any such attack in a western country and you'd be laughed out of court! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As an admin you should know it's not a criterion. Secondly, WP:NOTNEWS overrides GNG, otherwise every event reported in the news would get an article. Have you found any lasting coverage? LibStar (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? WP:SYSTEMIC isn't a criterion now? I beg to differ. And since when does anything override GNG? -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a fire near my home that was reported in the media, it may satisfy GNG but it is definitely a case of not news. Have you found any evidence of lasting coverage of this shooting? Did you bother to look? LibStar (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article may meet GNG but consensus is showing NOTNEWS. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Ujjain rape case. LibStar (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Relevant how? A single rape against the multiple murder of seventeen people. Both horrendous but not comparing like with like. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    knowing you, you would argue GNG in this rape case. Have you found any evidence of lasting coverage of this shooting? LibStar (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this shooting? 2023 Beverly Crest shooting, meets GNG but NOTNEWS applies. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I take it from you avoiding the question of finding lasting coverage of this shooting that you did a thorough search and could not find anything. Or you'll invent some sort of excuse. If 17 deaths is significant, is 2 or 3 deaths insignificant? Or if you can point to a notability criteria that grants notability for 17 deaths. Thanks in advance. LibStar (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    knowing you, you would argue GNG in this rape case. You don't know me. Stop making incorrect assumptions and WP:AGF. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Know you? I think to clarify I know your voting intentions to always vote keep. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have you actually found lasting coverage to meet WP:EVENT? It is extremely disturbing that you continually avoid this question. The Beverly Crest shooting got deleted as per NOTNEWS even though it might have met GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also refer to WP:SUSTAINED which also says we don't create articles on news events. LibStar (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2021 in Nigeria. If we end up with WP:SUSTAINED coverage in the future, we can always spin this back out. -- asilvering (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There is no consensus here, there is even more than one Merge/Redirect target article mentioned here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of home appliances

List of home appliances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

hopelessly open-ended and best left for a category. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No valid reason given for deletion. The rules clearly state you shouldn't delete a list because you prefer categories. List are always more useful than categories since they allow more information to be listed. Category:Home appliances exist, so this is a perfect valid navigational list. Dream Focus 22:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem is establishing a selection criteria. I could probably cross well over the thousand pages mark for things that could plausibly be considered a home appliance. Everything from the Mangle to the Smart speaker to the George Foreman Grill. Don't forget brands too - your Magic Bullets, your Sodastream or your Vitamix. If a home appliance is just any kind of powered tool intended for consumer use, then let's make sure we cover our ground - the Treadmill, Shake weight, and any other fitness device ever sold on an infomercial are all fair game. Everyone needs to do some odd jobs around the house with their Electric screwdriver. It's too broad and I'm not sure how to make it a comprehensive article. Open to responses, currently leaning delete. BrigadierG (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A reference for where a reliable source called an item a "home appliance" could be required. Dream Focus 05:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just turned the article into a table and found reliable source references for some things listed on it. It also list what year the item was commercially available for the average home. Dream Focus 05:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Home appliance; a separate page is not needed. It would also duplicate Small appliance, Major_appliance#Types, and List of cooking appliances, so it's superfluous. The missing examples above seem irrelevant though, the list should have criteria that excludes brands, but would include blender and Soda machine (home appliance). I don't think exercise machines are considered appliances, but either way there are other pages that can or do list home appliances so this one is not also necessary. Reywas92Talk 03:50, 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! 22:34, 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! 22:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe the list should be restricted to home appliances that get asked about in censuses? 2A02:1810:BC3A:D800:B5DB:C733:E510:202F (talk) 16:19, 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 delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helsing Junction, Washington

Helsing Junction, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's been a little slow, so I'm going to AFD this declined prod. I've had some free time so I've kinda beat this dead mule to death, and will pass the carcass to AFD.

Helsing Junction is a railroad junction, and like many of these it had a post office.

The article itself has two sources: GNIS (no contesting it unreliablity) and Thurston County Place Names, which states it is a rail junction and mentions settlers but avoids committing on whether they live there. There is a picture of "Independence Rail yard at Helsing Junction". I can certainly understand how an editor in a hurry could turn this entry into a town. It's entry also adds "See Independence" implying this is in that place.

In terms of what the local newspapers say: This news article (2002) from the talk page discussion [9] describes it as the place that Rochester used to be known as. The reader will need to lift a little here as I'm unable to provide a readily available link.

The above article is about a church's 100th anniversary, and a similar article was also written about this church on the occasion of it 70th(1972). [10] It states the church was built about 3 miles from Helsing Junction which it says is at Independence.

Just based on this, this article ought to be merged/redirected with Independence or Rochester, I'm leaning toward Independence. But that should be a discussion in this AFD.

Here is a temporal sampling of some further articles that I think show this is only a junction: 1964 [11], [12]; 1923 [13] mentioned in a news report from Independence. James.folsom (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete GBook hits are almost entirely rail-related, except for a few having to do with geology. The cited placenames work his a picture of the station, but nothing indicates it's in a town. Mangoe (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 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! 22:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This junction is in Independence, Washington, so I wanted to say just merge there, but really Independence is barely more than a named rural community that itself should probably be deleted or merged. I suspect that the later church news clip assigned it to Rochester because by then they had forgotten Independence existed.James.folsom (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't appear to be a legally recognised place. Desertarun (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HTML-Kit

HTML-Kit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't have enough coverage in WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV needed to meet notability guidelines. There's some brief coverage in books but nothing significant other than "it's an HTML editor you can use," and nothing else I could find that seemed reliable. Survived an AfD in 2005 solely on the basis of being "well-known." StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Because of prior deletion discussion, a Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 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! 22:50, 20 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! 23:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG, unsourced, nothing found that meets WP:SIRS.  // Timothy :: talk  10:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Netherlands

AfDs for this article:
Sports broadcasting contracts in the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all of the sources are primary sources, are nothing but announcements and does not assert notability. @BrigadierG: per suggestion by admin. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 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! 22:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A jumble of sports contracts, not encylcopedic. Desertarun (talk) 11:26, 27 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! 23:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This does not meet the criteria established by WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 00:03, 28 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. Okay, this discussion is closed. Now you can pursue other Merge options. Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mastering engineer

Mastering engineer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been tagged as having issues for two years for being based on OR. Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Mastering engineer seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME for a person who professionally masters audio. I would advise the nominator to read WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Mastering engineers are, for instance, one type of recipient eligible to receive a Grammy award - Grammy Award for Best Engineered Album, Non-Classical. Plenty of good quality sources are available on Google if you search for mastering engineer, happy to provide some if anyone seriously doubts that. BrigadierG (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Mastering (audio) into this article. Currently, we have articles on both the profession of mastering engineers and the field of mastering, even though Audio engineer and Audio engineering point to the same place. To match that article, we should turn Mastering (audio) into a redirect to this article after information and citations have been merged. Mach61 18:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Keep per Liz comment below. Mach61 21:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a vote on the mastering engineer article, you can't vote to do things to other articles as part of this AfD - this is just a keep vote. BrigadierG (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrigadierG WP:AFDFORMAT explicitly states If you think the article should be a disambiguation page, a redirect or merger to another article, then recommend "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge". Do not recommend deletion in such cases. Mach61 18:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly. You do not think the page Mastering engineer should be a disambiguation page, a redirect or merger to another article, so you would not vote for disambiguation, redirection, merge, or delete. You would vote keep. BrigadierG (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrigadierG Fair. The reason I put "merge" as my bolded vote is that the mastering article was of higher quality and detail, so most of the content in a combined article would be from there. Mach61 18:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is fair enough BrigadierG (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge seems fair. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge Keep per Liz's comment and Mach61's analogy with Audio engineer and Audio engineering. NicolausPrime (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AFD is about what happens with Mastering engineer not an another article you want to Merge into this one. BrigadierG is correct, unless you want Mastering engineer Merged into the other article (which I don't think is what you want, you need to vote Keep here and then nominate the other article for a Merge to this one or just be bold and do it yourself. But this is not a discussion on Mastering (audio).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NicolausPrime @Mach61 would you be willing to amend your vote per Liz's reasoning above? BrigadierG (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sorry for not taking your comment into account earlier. NicolausPrime (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BrigadierG@NicolausPrime I discussed this on Liz's talk page, would wait for response over there. Mach61 15:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete is a valid option, see below. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response given over there, changing vote to Keep. Slatersteven as there is unanimous agreement from everyone but you to keep, you can withdraw this AFD and end it early. Mach61 21:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MERGEDELETE. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't apply here. Nobody wants to delete or merge Mastering Engineer into another article. BrigadierG (talk) 18:24, 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. I find Safari Scribe's two contributions the most persuasive here. There's enough sentiment for deletion to form a consensus, and some decent policy-oriented opposition to at least one of the keep !votes to allow that consensus to be strong enough to delete. The potential AtD of a merge/redirect was similarly reasonably objected to and therefore isn't open to me as a closer. Daniel (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Dreyfuss

Ben Dreyfuss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per discussion on the talk page, I believe this article on Ben Dreyfuss should be deleted. I have searched for meaningful second-party references to his career or body of work and am coming up short -- he does not seem to be notable as either a creative professional or writer. As far as I can tell, his most significant mentions are minor social media disputes. This article has, as far as I can tell, never included appropriate references and has at times leaned on inappropriate references (ie, personal LinkedIn or Facebook pages). The only current reference is an article about Richard Dreyfuss, not his son Ben.

Since being related to a famous person by itself confers no notability (WP:BIOFAMILY), I think Ben Dreyfuss fails the notability check on his own. Geethree (talk) 13:45, 6 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 6. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, and United States of America. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft keep There are a handful of reliable sources with significant coverage of Ben (not just his father). See here, here, here, here, here, here. I'd say it's just over the threshold for notability but I can see how someone would make a different judgment call. P.S. If the AfD consensus is to delete this article, Emily Dreyfuss should probably go through AfD as well on similar grounds. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dclemens1971, I looked at the above sources you presented especially the first and second, which are simply interviews about a family. Others seems also though I didn't continued since first matters. Also we don't say because this person isn't notable, we should go for an article that has nothing to do with this AFD. Remember that journalists are taken to pass entry not only for the interviews they go always, but for coverage of them on a particular writing or style. If we should use those sources which are interviews per WP:INTERVIEW, then, we are incorporating unverifiable source—they says everything about them. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:INTERVIEWS highlights the tension in using interviews for verifiability/notability, but the manual of style makes clear that interviews that are conducted by reliable journalistic outlets with robust editorial standards (like NPR, Politico, and NBC) can be considered for use. EDITED TO ADD: I acknowledge that it's a matter of discretion and judgment and that's why my rating remains a soft/weak keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He was the editorial director of Mother Jones (magazine) which would possibly not be enough in itself, but is not chopped liver, here he is being interviewed strictly about that. Between that and the various things DClemens mentions above, it should be enough. --GRuban (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • GRuban, I just want to drive in: being such a writer of such magazines is not notability. I will also say you'do read it analyse the source per SE! — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per above! Cleanup and sourcing. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: An article about an individual that doesn't meet the general notability guidelines for a journalist and actor. For WP:JOURNALIST, the article were less/not supported by any reliable source. Primarily, covering news is not same as you covered in news. The question is, has his writing influenced any style, time, etc like a normal writer? has his journalism been covered per WP:SIGCOV or for a particular incident. The answer per WP:BEFORE is "no". Appearing on few films not as lead doesn't mean the person is notable per WP:NACTOR, there are more or less sources to verify he was cast if not databases like IMDb, etc. While I have analysed this article doesn't meet our notability guidelines for an entry. Likewise the imitator, there is a case of WP:BIOFAMILY, as the article percent were sources from his family, his father, who was a notable actor. In my researches, almost if not all the sources were about his father lining a bit of the son, so, this is a case of WP:INHERITED. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:05, 19 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! 22:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – At this stage, I would delete and add whatever to Richard's page. If over time, he becomes more notable, he may justify his own article. This isn't now. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, slightly fleshing out Richard's page (and deleting this one) seems like the clear solution here. Most of the links provided above are all about Ben in relation to his father, not about Ben per se. If that is the eventual consensus, I'm happy to make those updates myself. Geethree (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MaskedSinger, there is nothing to add here. Neither going for 23 eye surgeries nor being born by notable parents (WP:INHERITED) doesn't mean we should redirect or merge. Tis article is credibly have no context, sources that analysed his characters or directing, any award?, what cognitive impact he has made. I don't see much of his parents role here . As a matter of fact, let's judge it in it's own accord! — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The one keep !vote was a statement that has been, to my opinion, adequately rebutted referencing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Daniel (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adeseha Wuraola Becky

AfDs for this article:
Adeseha Wuraola Becky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. She has not starred in a single notable film; a Google search of her doesn't show her being discussed in reliable secondary sources. Most of the sources cited in the article are primary sources that involve the subject granting interviews to several publications. The article was previously deleted via an afd discussion, which can be seen here.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 22:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't G4 on a prod/soft delete. Desertarun (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The refs check out. She doesn't pass Nactor, nor does she need to because she passes both Basic and GNG. Desertarun (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact there is that there isn't much verifiable source(s) to verify whether she acted those films or not, that's part of WP:NBASIC. For the refs, there are WP:ROUTINE like made from interviews, etc and points towards WP:MILL—not notable for now! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Same as last AfD, nothing has changed, nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Sources in article are promo or mentions, nothing meeting WP:SIRS. Article looks like a promo bio to me.  // Timothy :: talk  09:53, 4 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.

List of Power Sphera Universe media

List of Power Sphera Universe media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. This is basically a catalog of a particular company's products. AFD nomination per no GNG sourcing of the topic per se and numerous wp:not issues. North8000 (talk) 22:01, 20 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! 23:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Animonsta Studios#Filmography: Smells like fancruft/listcruft, and fails NLIST, nothing showing this has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. Found promo, listings, nothing from independent sources showing this meets NLIST. I thought about CLN, but don't think the few entries here need a second separate navigation list from Animonsta Studios#Filmography. Power Sphera Universe does not exist, and it doesn't appear there is WP:SIRS for the subject.  // Timothy :: talk  06:07, 2 May 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) 05:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Al-Malki

Ahmed Al-Malki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced BLP. Transfermarkt and Soccerway confirm existence but not notability. I found Alyaum but it's a basic Q&A with the footballer and with no analysis. This doesn't count towards WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Massey

Lenny Massey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet relevant WP:MUSICBIO as well general WP:GNG. This BLP was created by a user who might have a COI. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Noori. Daniel (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kami Paul

Kami Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet relevant WP:MUSICBIO as well general WP:GNG. I would suggest first delete and then redirect to Noori. This BLP was created by a user who might have a COI.—Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Noori: not enough individual notability to warrant an individual article. InDimensional (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect: Scrapes through on notability but also repeats the same facts over and over Sansbarry (talk) 01:29, 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 delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muscovite–Ukrainian War (1658–1659)

Muscovite–Ukrainian War (1658–1659) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No such war in literature, it was part of the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667). This article is OR Marcelus (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seems to be mentioned here but the odds are this is not reliable and copied from Wikipedia. Possibly mentioned under other names in English, Polish, Ukrainian, Russian. Polish name is not mentioned, can anyone report on the queries in Russian and Ukrainian and analyze sources used in the respective articles on ru and uk wikis, if any (sources; articles exist)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears notable. Sources exist e.g. this and this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly re-title. We have an article on The Ruin (Ukrainian history). This would be a sub-article. I do personally find the use of "Muscovy" and "Ukraine" in this context a tad jarring. We seem to be very inconsistent in our terminology for early modern East Slavic states. There is an open access anthology on the battle of Konotop (1659) wherein Serhii Plokhy uses "Muscovite-Cossack war". Srnec (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Google Scholar returns 2 results for "Muscovite-Ukrainian War" and 9 results for "Ukrainian-Muscovite War", of which only 1 refers to 1658. Clearly a new title is needed in this case and this seems to fall under the Ruin and Russo-Polish War articles (which are sorely lacking details for this period). Even the Ukrainian-language sources cited use "Russian-Ukrainian war" and this looks like to have been the original title on the Ukrainian Wikipedia before it was moved. In my opinion this looks like revisionist history referring to an uprising led by Ivan Vyhovsky (a pro-Polish hetman). For example this source says: "Khmel'nitskii died in 1657, and Poland and the new Cossack leader, Vygovskii, now accepted Polish lordship over Ukraine. Vygovskii joined Poland in the resumption of war with Russia in October 1658... But in Ukraine, Cossacks of the Left Bank... rebelled against Vygovskii's pro-Polish alliance... Vygovskii fled to Poland, and Trubetskoi marched to Pereiaslavl', where he persuaded the Left Bank Cossacks to accept him as hetman in October 1659" (p. 214). I do not think it is suited for a spin-off article; I would say merge instead but most the article is unsourced. Mellk (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In a nutshell: in 1658 Vyhovsky again recognized the Cossacks' dependence on Poland; the Union of Hadziach was signed. This resumed Polish-Russian fighting interrupted earlier by a truce; Russia invaded Ukraine seeking to subjugate Vyhovsky, having some Cossacks (including Sich) behind it.
    In May, the PLC again concluded a truce with Russia, but the Sejm approved the Hadziach Union, and Vyhovsky received small reinforcements from the crown army. Thus came the Battle of Konotop, which Vyhovsky won. In August, however, a Cossack uprising broke out against Vyhovsky, who was overthrown and the new Hetman Yurko Khmelnytsky subordinated himself to Moscow, supported by a large part of the Cossacks. The war continued.
    As you can see, there is no war between “Ukraine” and “Moscow”, but there is an internal rivalry between the divided Cossacks, which take place in the context of the Polish-Russian war. Marcelus (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also add that Google Scholar returns almost no results for "Russian-Ukrainian war" or "Russo-Ukrainian war" referring to 1658/1659 (if we limit the years to before the current war then almost all results refer to the Russian Civil War and a hypothetical war excluding post-2014 publications referring to the current war but slipped through). Same goes for "Muscovite-Cossack war" etc. I see a few results for Ukrainian-language sources but there needs to be a deeper look to see which ones are reliable. At the moment I see very little that supports the idea of a separate war. For example there are plenty of Ukrainian-language sources that refer to a Soviet occupation of Ukraine until 1991 but this was determined to be a fringe view. In fact we had an AfD for this (and this was also a translation of an article from the Ukrainian Wikipedia). Mellk (talk) 15:43, 26 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! 23:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Salvage what is possible from the article and merge it into the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667) page. Noorullah (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with the nom, no such war happened, this is simply re-branding events in the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667) to get the name "Ukraine" in an title. The closest anything comes to this would be something like "Muscovite-Cossack skirmishes during the Russo-Polish War)", and I don't see SIGCOV from RS that would make this anything but an unneeded CFORK. The article itself is largely unsourced original research, I don't see anything here that would improve the a merge target.  // Timothy :: talk  09:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: largely unsourced original research, and it's dubious if this subject even exists. Sources in the article are not convincing; same for the sources offered in this AfD. For example, this source [14] includes this strange passage: ...Russian historiography officially treats this event as the “Reunification of Ukraine with Russia”, although there was no Russia at that time, and the entire world called only Ukrainians Russians, or Russian people. But no one had a question, which land is called Rus', because again the whole world knew that Rus' is Ukraine." And so on. I don't see anything worth merging that's not already covered in the main article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and my previous comments. There is very little that supports the idea of a separate war and there is not much to salvage from the article as it currently is. Mellk (talk) 11:46, 4 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zlatko Radić

Zlatko Radić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't see how this passes WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Most of the references in the article are to primary sources, and seem to largely be cursory mentions. Joy (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Radić was a member of the Serbian parliament. Politicians elected to national assemblies are automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN. CJCurrie (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He's still failing WP:GNG. I mean, seriously now, the Serbian Parliament described him like this: there is no biography, and there's just a single word for his profession. Sure, technically this passes the guideline on politicians, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I can fathom that this backbencher is worthy of an article in the Serbian Wikipedia, but English? --Joy (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This strikes me as a misreading of the policy. WP:POLITICIAN indicates that all members of national assemblies are automatically assumed to be notable. WP:Notability indicates that an article topic is presumed to be notable if it "meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)." It is therefore sufficient that Radić passes WP:POLITICIAN; whether or not he also passes WP:GNG is immaterial.
    Also, I'm inclined to think that an individual being notable on the Serbian Wiki (or the Croatian Wiki, or the Hungarian, or any other Wiki one could name) would generally make them notable on the English Wiki as well. CJCurrie (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, what can I say... I continue to be saddened by arguments apparently based on pure technicalities. --Joy (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Being a member of parliament of a sovereign state automatically passes WP:NPOL. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 20:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mccapra @BlakeIsHereStudios can we reflect on the spirit and letter of WP:NPOL as well as WP:GNG, please? --Joy (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to reflect on? He was a member of a national parliament. Slam dunk. Mccapra (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind of some of these fine linked guidelines: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Fundamentally, how does the average English reader benefit from being told so many details about this person, when e.g. a redirect to List of members of the National Assembly of Serbia, 2003–2007 would suffice. Oh, wait, we don't even have a list of all of them in there. The stated goal of the guideline on politicians is to ensure that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete. Having this standalone article adds excessive detail while we are clearly lacking the basic general coverage, which is incongruent. --Joy (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reiterate something I wrote above: WP:Notability indicates that a topic is presumed notable if it "meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)." It is therefore sufficient that Radić passes WP:POLITICIAN; whether or not he also passes WP:GNG is immaterial. CJCurrie (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Blatantly obvious that it passes WP:NPOL and should be closed by WP:SNOW. CJCurrie has made some excellent points regarding WP:Notability. If the nominator has an issue with WP:NPOL, this should be discussed outside an AFD. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some really odd comments by the nom showing complete misunderstanding for how Wikipedia works. I assumed the nom was a new editor, then I see they've been here 22 years and is an admin! Nom says the subject fails WP:NPOL which explicitly says national legislators are notable. Nom says "Fundamentally, how does the average English reader benefit from being told so many details about this person" - not making a great case for a lack of notability and then says "I can fathom that this backbencher is worthy of an article in the Serbian Wikipedia, but English?" which is a pretty extraordinary statement. So American or British backbenchers are worthy of coverage but not Serbian ones? Heard of WP:GEOBIAS? AusLondonder (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AusLondonder what is extraordinary about wanting a politician's coverage to be commensurate to the person's significance? On the Serbian Wikipedia, there's probably a lot more content about Lapovo, so if they go into an appropriate amount of detail about whatever other local features, characteristics, people, ... they can go into the same amount of detail about the local politicians. Likewise, the English Wikipedia will contain an amount of information relevant to English readers that wouldn't necessarily be seen exactly the same on the other language Wikipedias. This is perfectly normal because it caters to the readers.
    I'm still not sure in what universe an average English reader would be interested in how some guy spent four years in the Serbian Parliament after getting in as a substitute, apparently did not do anything worth mentioning other than get into a bar fight back home (!), and then was later candidate number 189 or 229 and didn't get elected there ever again. The fact he later finished third in a mayoral election with 600-odd votes, but did serve on the municipal council, is likewise largely meaningless. This is like a compendium of useless factoids about a person. Does nobody have any qualms that this violates WP:NOTWHOSWHO?
    At this point I am genuinely perplexed why y'all care so much for keeping this largely trivial information in a standalone article and don't even want to bother coming up with a rationale on who are these readers who we would be serving by keeping this as is. --Joy (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree this will likely never be a Featured Article on the English Wiki, it still passes the threshold for notability. And while this is a separate issue, the information included in the article pertains to the subject's time in public life and is not just a random collection of facts. CJCurrie (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not random, but it is just that - information. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a summary of knowledge, not just information. We can summarize the relevant knowledge about this person's public life in a single list caption as it is now, perhaps referencing it to a couple of those primary sources and to the paragraph in that Politika summary article on parliamentary immunity in Serbia. If they ever do something else of note (WP:POTENTIAL), then they can still get a standalone article. --Joy (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'd like to see this article buffed out a bit more with stuff he did in office, but the subject clearly passes WP:NPOL, which is not a merely arbitrary guideline but exists to help mitigate nominations such as this. These types of political figures tend to always (like in 99.5% of testcases) have coverage of their activities in office, even if you cannot see it using Google (i.e. in things like newspapers that have not yet been digitized; this is basically an estimator of when WP:OFFLINE coverage is likely to exist). If the current state of an NPOL-passing article does not yet surpass WP:NOPAGE, then it can be redirected to a list of legislators; this article clearly does pass that threshold. Curbon7 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Curbon7 would love to see 99.5% of these testcases, esp. in relation to Serbia where the political scene is generally well documented. --Joy (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me put it this way: to my knowledge, no post-1900 WP:NPOL-passing politician has ever been deleted at AfD in the past 15 years on notability grounds. To repeat myself, that is not merely for no reason; a member of parliament will literally always have coverage of their activities, even if that coverage is not easily accessible on Google, whether that be in newspapers that have not yet been digitized or those that are in inaccessible or paywalled archives. Curbon7 (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article should certainly be flagged for improvement, but members of national legislatures are inherently notable per WP:NPOL #1. The argument here isn't actually that politicians are exempted from GNG — national legislators virtually always pass GNG, and the real issue is that we haven't always invested sufficient effort into finding all of the best GNG-worthy sourcing to write the most substantial article with, and that's especially going to be a problem for politicians who served in countries where the strongest sourcing would be written in foreign languages that many contributors to the English Wikipedia can't read. But again, it's not that better sourcing doesn't exist, it's that Wikipedians haven't put enough work into finding it, which isn't the same thing — and that's precisely why we have SNGs alongside GNG, because the current state of an article is not always the end of the story in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearcat that's the thing. I couldn't find anything substantial about this person online, let alone proper secondary sources. For a 21st century Serbian politician, that's just not great. --Joy (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what specific resources you actually checked? Do you have access to a proper database of archived Serbian media coverage from 15 to 20 years ago, or did you just do a simple Google search? A politician who was in office from 2004 to 2007 obviously isn't going to have a lot of recent coverage that would still Google well in 2024, but that doesn't constitute proof that at-the-time coverage didn't exist in 2004 and 2005 and 2006 — so you need to be more specific about where you searched, because stuff can fall through the cracks if we don't completely exhaust every possible resource. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, a general Google Search failed to produce much of anything about this Zlatko Radić. It found some others, but apparently not this one. I also tried with site:rs specifically, and in Cyrillic as well. If our readers have to have the skills of a private investigator to verify our article about something, then that's not really in the realm of general notability. --Joy (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The realm of general notability does not require all or even most of our sources to be recent news coverage that googles, and does permit older news coverage that has to be found in archives. So since Google is not a place where media coverage from 20 years ago would have been expected to turn up, did you actually check any databases of archived Serbian media coverage where articles from 20 years ago would have been expected to turn up? That doesn't require the skills of a private investigator to do, it just requires the skills of a marginally competent researcher. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 15:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XSharp

AfDs for this article:
XSharp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This programming language does not have enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Just another .NET addon. Previously deleted in a 2009 AfD but resurrected by a WP:SPA in 2016. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been AfD'd, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of significant coverage via my cursory look. Also should be salted. [This should not go without a consensus] X (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 21:17, 27 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, Daniel (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable programming language. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I find Timothy's rationale the most persuasive, and there's just about enough support for deletion here. If anyone wants this draftified to work on it immediately, please let me know and I will facilitate. Daniel (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Jobe

Maxime Jobe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of IRS SIGCOV, which is required to be cited in the article for all sportspeople. JoelleJay (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided (leaning keep/move to draft): Young Catalans player and will likely have more coverage later in his career. Should be expanded, but currently not sufficient coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you agree that there is not sufficient coverage? JTtheOG (talk) 22:14, 24 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! 23:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found routine mill news, name mentions, listings, nothing with SIGCOV from independent reliable sources. BLPs require strong sourcing. Sources in article are a database record and a name mention in routine game news. Ping me if indepth SIGCOV is found.  // Timothy :: talk  09:11, 4 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 procedural close‎ as wrong venue--no rationale was provided in any case. Drafts are taken up at WP:MFD. (non-admin closure) --Finngall talk 22:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Shemaroo Umang (TV channel)

Draft:Shemaroo Umang (TV channel) (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Shemaroo Umang (TV channel)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Jeromeenriquez (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Accendo

Order of Accendo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are practically no sources. The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism that is cited few times is just a generic and pretty short article on Discordianism [15]. Search of reliable sources (Google Books and Scholar) turns up nothing. Викидим (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: Don't see how it could be, since the target has been a redirect since 2015 that was just restored today. Unless you are referring to Veverve's nomination of 23 Discordian redirects to RfD on 5 April as edit-warring, in which case, yes. Skyerise (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: couldn't find a single source even mentioning this, not even the sources cited in the article give a single passing mention as far as I can tell (although I don't have access to the The West Australian article or Cosmic Trigger). Shapeyness (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps speedily, as a hoax. Like other commentators, I can find no reliable sources whatsoever that so much as mention "Order of Accendo". It seems to be completely made up. Jfire (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is, sadly, a dearth of good, independent, secondary sources on Discordianism-related topics, which has the knock-on effect of making them non-encyclopedic. Psychastes (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its been on the cat:nn since time began and not really worked. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 09:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was going to suggest redirected to Discordianism until I noticed from the discussion there is a longer history here. The doubts about the verifiability that an "Order of Accendo" exists is convincing enough for me. Ben Azura (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. WP:SNOW keep, there is now overwhelming consensus that it is notable. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koopa Troopa

Koopa Troopa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Reception section for this article at present is incredibly small, and per a BEFORE search, I found practically nothing else on these guys. A lot of sources mention them in brief, but there is very little actual commentary on them in these sources. As it stands now, I seriously doubt that the Koopa Troopas have enough sources to build an article. I'd suggest a redirect to the Mario characters list as an AtD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I haven't looked into additional sources myself enough to give a recommendation at this point, but I just wanted to point out that all but one source in the Concept and Creation section are primary sources - they are all just from the "Iwata Asks" series on official Nintendo websites. And per the WP:GNG, in order to be able to help establish notability, sources need to be "independent of the subject". Rorshacma (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Mario franchise characters#Enemy characters - even if notable it clearly fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE with a very lacking reception that feels incredibly stretched-out. No prejudice towards recreation if someone manages to find more reception. IMO there is very little difference with the issues that led Boo (character) to also be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm struggling to understand how INDISCRIMINATE applies to this. Can you better explain? Sergecross73 msg me 00:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It lacks any reception besides one IGN list entry. The "Passionfruit" site is dubiously notable, and the rest belongs in Legacy not Reception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's...not what INDISCRIMINATE itself refers to. None of its points apply to this. And Passionfruit is part of The Daily Dot, which is reliable per WP:VG/S Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, I will change my opinion to keep since things seem to be going in that direction. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, I just wasn't really sure about its current state. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Serge's rationale. I don't really feel I can add on more from that though. CaptainGalaxy 16:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Recently, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ made an argument about another article list that "if I had known merging would have cut down this much information I wouldn't have voted to merge". That stuck with me, and I feel that is more a valid concern here. There is clearly a lot of development and legacy information in this article and how it impacted the development of the series, and when you look at the list itself there is no feasible way to maintain this information over there (the enemy sections are all short and brief), and trying to brute force it in will create a weird instance of WP:UNDUE when you compare it to how the rest of the sections are structured given there's not the same level of development info for those other enemies. One could argue too for a "death by 1000 cuts" approach: is it possible to illustrate a character is so recognizable that its notable regardless of a lack of discussion?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Sergecross's statement. I do think that the Koopa Troopa deserve their own page, mainly because they've been in the franchise (almost) since the start. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find what Kung Fu Man said compelling - often, merging can be fairly destructive, and in this case, I find it difficult to see a reasonable happy middleground between giving Koopa Troopa's dev info and impact too little or too much weight on the list. While there definitely should be more info on the article, the sheer amount of info that would be lost in the merge makes it feel like no one would actually benefit. To me, I feel like we sometimes treat "having an article" as a status. Would a reader benefit from having Koopa Troopa info either dominating the enemies list or simply being absent? It's important that we don't let such a concept be used to justify the splitting of articles with hardly anything to them, but this clearly has something that's lost in a merge. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's valid concerns made over just merging as Koopa Troopas have significantly more references detailing them than say, a Podoboo (or most Super Mario enemies for the matter). Plus, the current article is honestly fine as it is with the only problem being the reference formatting for some of the last few references used but otherwise, another instance of WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per source discussion above. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Quick Reaction Alert. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operational Readiness Platform

Operational Readiness Platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable concept. Search only shows results for operational readiness for companies. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The term does exist, the abbreviation 'ORP' being more used. They are nothing more than widened areas of the runway at each end or just one end (for take off in to the prevailing wind). It's really a historic term that fell out of use in the RAF with the end of the V bomber force. It should be redirected to Quick Reaction Alert after some kind of mention there. The 'Q-sheds' mentioned there were literally tin sheds by the end of the runway to protect interceptor aircraft from the weather which were replaced by use of hardened aircraft shelters (the nearest ones to the runway on a typical squadron HAS site). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was struggling to identify a redirect target. I agree with your suggestion, thank you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. A one sentence article. Desertarun (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawker Siddeley HS 138

Hawker Siddeley HS 138 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Never built aircraft concept. I cannot find much of anything about this design, so I do not see how an article can be sustained on it. If there are sources I am somehow missing please let me know. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not enough published info to pass WP:GNG. Also, much of what is given here is not backed up by the existing sources, even conflicts with one or two other snippets I have found, so a merge of any kind is not worth considering. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [updated 01:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete - cannot find any substantial coverage. Does not appear to have ever risen from the pages of a speculative newsletter. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:18, 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 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! 23:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rimbun Air de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter

Rimbun Air de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a significant, noteworthy aircrash. The guidance at WP:AIRCRASH suggests this should be an entry in a larger list, nothing more. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Event fails WP:GNG and the event criteria. No evidence of lasting effects with no continued coverage of the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the future, it would be better if you cited something else than WP:AIRCRASH as it is an essay and should not be applied in AfD nominations.
Per the consensus from the page:

By consensus this should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not. If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article it may also be notable enough for a stand-alone article, if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports.

Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, after all I'm trainsandotherthings, not airplanesandotherthings. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:48, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of books about waste management and recycling

List of books about waste management and recycling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list of a few books about Waste management and recycling. Nothing to show that such a list has any intrinsic notability. Sources are for lists of books or links to google pages or library pages featuring specific books. The real bibliography for this topic would run to many thousands of books. This is a very small sub-set weith no indication that they are particulalrly relevant etc. There is a chance the list might be notable if the list was of notable books, but it isn't. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   18:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ramgopal Suthar

Ramgopal Suthar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As noted in WP:NPOL and WP:NSUBPOL, Wikipedia doesn't normally consider municipal councillors notable enough for a separate article, unless they've received significant press coverage in that role. The rest of his roles have been low-to-mid-level party leader jobs and a political appointment as chair of Skill Development Board, Government of Rajasthan. No significant coverage of him per WP:GNG or WP:BIO in reliable secondary sources; what I can find on him in a WP:BEFORE search in English and Hindi (रामगोपाल सुथार) is routine coverage of his recent appointment as chair, and some WP:PRIMARY source quotes from his speeches. Wikishovel (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added enough resources for Position held in Part over time, are they not sufficient for Publishing the article? Vishwakarma-anie (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
user:wikishovel I have added enough resources for Position held in Part over time, are they not sufficient for Publishing the article? Vishwakarma-anie (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions normally take about a week. Wikishovel (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment His only claim to notability in Wikipedia terms is being chairman of the state skills development board. Being an appointed chair of a state advisory board is not enough to justify a biography on Wikipedia, and the fact that he’s previously been a municipal ward councillor and party official doesn’t help. The rest is just a ridiculous hagiography, entirely unsourced, about his revered rather and devout mother raising him in a holy city among the sand dunes, a quote from his dad, and a homily about how he sacrificed his personal advancement to devote himself to the plight of the marginalised. None of this stuff belongs in an encyclopedia. Mccapra (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎ on a particular target which is understandably unsatisfying, but with multiple potential targets and no indication a consensus is going to solidify around one, there is no action for a closer here. There is a consensus that these should be covered within the scope of the 2022 games or that of their country's participation in the games. That discussion can be continued editorially without concern that this AfD precludes that. Star Mississippi 14:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominica at the 2002 Commonwealth Games

Dominica at the 2002 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously subject of a contested PROD. No secondary sources. Zero useful content. Previous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominica at the 2010 Commonwealth Games was that these articles are not useful, particularly if they lack substantive content.

  • I am also nominating the following related pages:
Montserrat at the 2002 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anguilla at the 2002 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Antigua and Barbuda at the 2002 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tuvalu at the 2002 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saint Lucia at the 2002 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mauritius at the 2002 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

AusLondonder (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Caribbean. AusLondonder (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to 2002 Commonwealth Games. Athletes need to win a medal for their participation in an event to become notable - seems most reasonable to apply that to countries as well. BrigadierG (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with making that a blanket rule, but many of these countries that send a small number of participants won't generate coverage to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for notifying me. As I'm not sure what they could be replaced with if deleted, I would favour completing those articles rather than deleting them (and subsequently re-creating them with proper content). Either that, or put into Dominica at the Commonwealth Games (etc) the content that they should have, and turn them into a redirect. Aridd (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • AusLondonder, did you add these additional articles to this nomination or did someone else? Whomever did it, please move this list of articles to the top of the AFD, above any comments, so that XFDcloser will see them as being part of this AFD nomination. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 08:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: Thanks, will do. They were towards the top before, appears someone accidentally commented above them. AusLondonder (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AusLondonder, nicely done. Thank you. XFDcloser can be a little fussy. Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to "X at the Commonwealth Games" (where X is country name). Not enough coverage for separate articles, but they look to have 2002 mentioned in their parent articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all with prejudice to Anguilla at the Commonwealth Games, Antigua and Barbuda at the Commonwealth Games etc. XX at XX CG are often barebones article, almost templates, with no hope whatsoever for expansion to actual articles. The sensible solution is to merge on sight with the appropriate country pages. Geschichte (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure a redirect is necessary. The Montserrat page, for example, was averaging views in the single digits per month, not even statistically significant. Most internal links are via templates such as Template:Associations at the 2002 Commonwealth Games. I also don't particularly see how a redirect here fulfils the criteria at WP:RPURPOSE. Also taking a look at the template Associations at the 2002 Commonwealth Games about half the template are redlinks. Finally, the redirects are not plausible search terms. AusLondonder (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or merge and which is the preferred target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a native of the island mentioned in this AFD discussion title (obvious disclosure), merge and source into Dominica at the Commonwealth Games (as an example). (If possible--for completion's sake--we may as well actually mention the names of the six athletes who participated back then.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging just 2002 to the parent articles when no other years, even more successful years, are mentioned, doesn't seem like appropriate balance. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to 2002 Commonwealth Games. Little chance any coverage exists to satisfy GNG individually. JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 25 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, ToadetteEdit! 18:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shreyas Puranik

Shreyas Puranik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, appears not notable. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of the article i would like to suggest keep, as it passes WP:MUSIC. The musical artist have received full fledged coverage from independent media sources for his work such as [16], [17], [18].[19]. Further the artist also passes one of the criteria of winning or being nominated for a notable award, as he won the notable Filmfare R. D. Burman Award in the category of upcoming music talent.[20][21]

Hineyo (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above references are either paid placement or Press Releases. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Note - This account (Hineyo) is blocked. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were blocked for 24 hours. That doesn't invalidate their opinion on that basis alone. Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pass WP:MUSIC, Also, there are significant reliable sources availabe which talks about the subject. Grabup (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: He has won awards which indicate notability and the articles references indicate sufficient coverage InDimensional (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please share best three references ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakhtar40 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 3 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.

Ian Ferrier

AfDs for this article:
Ian Ferrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. This was previously deleted in 2019 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Ferrier and then got recreated in fall 2023 after his death, but this version is still referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all -- even the one footnote that's technically citing a newspaper is still just his paid-inclusion death notice in the classifieds, not a journalist-written news story about his death, and virtually everything else is content self-published by companies or organizations he was directly affiliated with, while the one potentially acceptable source (LitLive) is not enough to clinch passage of GNG all by itself.
And for notability claims, there are statements (a minor literary award, presidency of an organization) that might count for something if they were sourced properly, but there's still absolutely nothing that would be "inherently" notable enough to hand him an automatic notability freebie in the absence of proper WP:GNG-worthy sourcing.
And the French interlang is based entirely on the same poor sourcing as this one, so it has no GNG-worthy footnotes that can be copied over to salvage this either. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both the English and French articles are based entirely on primary sources that are not support for notability, such as "staff" profiles or press releases on the self-published websites of organizations and companies that he was directly affiliated with — only one source (LitLive) is GNG-worthy at all, and one GNG-worthy source isn't enough. People don't pass GNG just by using primary sources to verify facts, people pass GNG by showing third-party journalism and/or books that cover said facts as subjects of news and analysis. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 29 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! 23:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Article has plenty of references so it seems like coverage is enough to pass notability guidelines. InDimensional (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: passed notability in my eyes Sansbarry (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't a question of "your eyes", it's a question of whether the correct kind of sourcing is there or not. Bearcat (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "in my eyes" means in my opinion of whether or not the sourcing is good@Bearcat Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out precisely which sources are "good", considering that they're pretty much all primary sources right across the board. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has plenty of good references Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While every opinion after the deletion nomination has been a bolded 'keep', I am still not suitably persuaded. Further discourse regarding the 'quality' (in Wikipedia terms) of the French sources appears to be needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Even just limiting my search to English language sources, I see enough to meet WP:GNG. [22], [23], [24], ProQuest 1430523918, ProQuest 821134990. Jfire (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have expanded the article significantly using these sources and more. Jfire (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has reliable sources to prove its notability. It passes GNG. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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! 07:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electrolux Laundry Systems

Electrolux Laundry Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has absolutely no references to support it, has been tagged for many years to that effect, has not had anything substantial added to it for several years, and is not particularly informative. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 4 gnews hits one of which is primary. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 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 merge‎ to Martin Ski Dome. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, Washington

Martin, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At a glance, this looks like a well-written and -sourced article, but it's a total WP:COATRACK. Almost nothing in the article is about the "town" of Martin, because there isn't anything to say: It was a minor railroad maintenance point that later had a station for a nearby ski area. Of all the cited sources, only reference 14 comes close to substantial coverage; many sources don't mention Martin at all. I couldn't find any additional sources that aren't already cited, and none are more than trivial mentions (e.g. photos of trains taken at Martin). I suggest a delete; I could also live with a merge of relevant content to Stampede Pass, Northern Pacific Railroad, or Meany Lodge (from which much of this article's content seems to have been copied). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Stampede pass. I agree with nom. The newspaper record supports this is a train station near Stampede pass that had good ski properties. But there was never a town there. The nearest towns were Easton and Weston. I don't however understand why there was a siding and a station there. Refueling, or maintenance maybe? Here are news clips that are helpful in understanding the place. Describes it as remotest place in county. [25] Stranded Skies spend the night in Meany hut. [26] People ski at Meany SKi hut [27]James.folsom (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In further reading of the papers I did see a passing mention about steam locomotives needing to stop for water after a long climb up a grade. James.folsom (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable railway complex rather than as a populated place (although some railway workers must have lived there). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your assumption that some workers lived is factually incorrect, as my second source makes it clear there were no overnight facilities at the site. Several, other sources I read make it clear it is miles from the nearest and very remote. James.folsom (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Martin Ski Dome, which appears to have been expanded by the same author. There's enough here for an article, but I think the ski dome is a better target. SportingFlyer T·C 17:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Martin Ski Dome, nothing showing this meets GNG or NGEO.  // Timothy :: talk  17:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Martin Ski Dome. This page does not meet GEOLAND and would be a delete for me, but it is just about a plausible search term for the proposed target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:25, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 04:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamás Giák

Tamás Giák (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Giák played one professional match but the coverage that I can find lacks the depth to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. There is a BOON article about him, but it's mostly just a long quote from him and the writer does not address Giák in depth. Nemzeti Sport has some coverage but it's just very brief transfer announcements like Egri transfer and leaving for Austria. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyagold

Priyagold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not able to find reliable sources with significant coverage of Priyagold apart from the routine coverage, numerical facts and press releases. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-meet-ballabh-prasad-agarwal-who-quit-family-business-built-rs-3000-crore-firm-priyagold-which-is-challenging-3080038

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Despite the number of sources in the article, most simply regurgitate information provided by the company and/or execs and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 20:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • CU note I'll let the AfD play out, but note that this article was created by a WP:UPE sock.-- Ponyobons mots 20:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mannkal Economic Education Foundation

Mannkal Economic Education Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell lacks WP:SIGCOV. Only passing mentions in most sources which are independent from the subject. TarnishedPathtalk 10:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've had this on my radar since just before the most recent relist... should probably commit to getting it done today so I don't forget it again. Haven't finished my review of the sources yet, but I just wanted to note that these specific articles in The Australian are available in The Wikipedia Library's subscription of ProQuest (under different titles) for anyone interested. "Liberals in denial" is 1905750740 (TWL EZproxy link), "Mining legend" is 2834330126. Another article in The Australian is "No campaign stands by Gary Johns amid controversy" (2841623161), but that is also a name check, we can use it to verify that they a) have a Christmas party and b) people speak at it but that's pretty much it. As another way to access, I think most The Australian articles also let you skip the paywall if you access as a google AMP. Anyway, should hopefully be done with the rest of the sources in my list soon. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While my search is not entirely exhaustive, I believe we can exclude with high confidence that there exists any coverage satisfying WP:ORGDEPTH. I would honestly disagree that even the two Business News articles go anywhere beyond what is solidly WP:ORGTRIV (of Mannkal, rather than the founder Manners) "Queen's Birthday" has approximately two facts about the organisation, and precisely zero analysis; "Manners made for mining" is the same. The other articles in Business News are largely "here is what they said" "here's one of them writing a column for us this week" etc. Surely very interesting, but not something we can write an article about the org from.
    There are two books that have brief mentions, Ferguson's 2012 Gina Rinehart, ISBN 9783031270444, says: Gina has forged links with some of the most aggressive free-market think tanks in Australia and overseas. These have included the Institute of Public Affairs, the Mont Pelerin Society, the Mannkal Economic Education Foundation and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. Manners has been appointed to the Board of Overseers for the Atlas Economic Research Foundation which is associated with neoliberal think tanks in 80 countries. and Hagland's 2023 Think Tanks in Australia: Policy Contributions and Influence, ISBN 9783031270444 also mentions Mannkal, twice in footnotes, once in body text quoting their executive director and also in the index and appendices containing list of think tanks. I think Hagland's book is quite interesting, and could be useful in a more general article (on, you know, think tanks in Australia in general), but ultimately, again, there is almost nothing to write about this org itself.
    On the two Spectator articles, the first one, about Senator Price is written by, uh, Ron Manners. The founder and chair. So, not independent. Not that it even really says anything about the org. The other one is a reprint of their presser. As far as I can tell, none of the other score of articles that have a keyword match for Mannkal have anything to say either, most of them are just "this was written by Mannkal scholar/chairman/alumni".
    I do not see how we could possibly write any article based on what is published in independent, reliable secondary sources, and in this case, that mean we most likely shouldn't. Delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 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.

List of rulers of Shan states

List of rulers of Shan states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a collection of 77 unsourced genealogies, with four footnotes. There is probably a notable list for this topic, but in its current state, WP:TNT is needed to make room; if all the unsourced genealogy material was removed, there would a a title and categories. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site.  // Timothy :: talk  13:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Myanmar. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Calling this a genealogy would be the same as calling List of French monarchs a genealogy; technically not incorrect but a bit silly as it is a list of rulers. Certainly passes WP:NLIST; for instance, in the appendix of this book, there is a list of the rulers of about 35 of these states from 1887 to 1959. It seems the majority of the present article is derived from WorldStatesman [28], which is of course deprecated. WP:TNT is an option that is on the table. Curbon7 (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: I don't know if it's past the WP:TNT tipping point yet. It's likely that much of the content could be sourced from the generic references. Don't think the material is necessarily controversial enough to mandate WP:INLINE citations. Of course, it's also likely that WorldStatesman is the true source, hence the weak keep. I don't personally have much time to edit this week, but I could go through the book Curbon listed or find other books I do have on Shan states and try to inline cite some the week after that. But doesn't seem unrecoverable and full of misinformation just because of a lack of inline citations. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 03:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Here are some recent (last couple of weeks) examples of why TNT is needed: [29], [30], [31]. None of this is sourced, no one can tell if these edits are correct or not. The article is too far gone to expect anyone to fix it.  // Timothy :: talk  08:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Good selections- as far as I can tell it isn't merely even changes in romanizations/inconsistent dating between chronicles. Changing my vote to agree on TNT grounds. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 17:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essentially no citations. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:00, 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) 03:59, 28 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) 05:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HDE Controller X

HDE Controller X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, no sources, single external link now redirects elsewhere Greenman (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 18:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy of Fear

Galaxy of Fear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails notability guidelines for books. ltbdl (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Dili

Hotel Dili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable historic hotel in East Timor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arab-Chalukya conflict

Arab-Chalukya conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Synthesis of two deleted articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Navsari and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thane with a new name called "Arab-Chalukya conflict". Article is built on WP:OR, no sources either calls this by the name as seen in the title. Imperial[AFCND] 10:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:: The creator is now blocked for sockpuppetry. The two earlier articles were created by the sockmaster. So it is an attempt of the sockmaster to revive the two of his deleted articles with a new name.--Imperial[AFCND] 06:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Created by a blocked sock, combining other deleted articles. I have also nominated it for wp:speedy deletion. So this AfD might be moot. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akuma Saningong

Akuma Saningong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Purely promotional and written by a UPE. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSCIENTIST, other claims are spurious, nothing on Google that isn't press-related. BrigadierG (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — obviously promotional, not much more to be added. — Biruitorul Talk 20:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Puffery and made up creation. The article doesn't provide variable importance for inclusion, while begging the fact that it lacks context and SIGCOV for WP:NAUTHOR (probably self published books), WP:NSCIENTIST. Doesn't show the need for entry here. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this is a single-purpose account. Biruitorul Talk 06:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a UPE article filled with lots of refs that are mostly blogs/press-releases/non-RS entries (I deleted most of them but the blocked UPE returned under a different name to restore them). Several other of the UPEs creation are also at AfD (e.g. Iulia and Delia). The subject is not a notable scientist but they are an active speaker who needs a Wikipedia page to construct notability. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong Keep | Article is not promotional and written in neutral voice and it meets and passes WP:GNG. Article is well researched and backed with secondary references. Anyone doubting should go and check and they aren’t press releases as purported. I happened to have stumbled across this article on the web and I am not the UPE who is claimed to have written the article and there is no proof for that. I have studied other articles of the alleged UPE which were elected for deletion and they weren’t deleted e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Bernstein. It was kept on merit. Why all this hating on Wikipedia? Articles should be kept on merit and in the case of this one it passes Wikipedia guidelines for WP:GNG, WP:NSCIENTIST and WP:NAUTHOR. I might be a single-purpose account because I had the urge to intervene for justice to be served. It shouldn’t infringe my rights not to comment and stand for justice and the truth. Let the facts and evidence speak for themselves. Visit the talk page of the subject in question, where other two seasoned editors and contributors have made comments in favour to keep the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Akuma_Saningong Sword-Emperor-dev (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking 2nd !vote by the article creator. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other UPEs from User:CharlesBNB include Iulia and Delia, Renzo Vitale, and Georg Weissacher. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Mutta (tribe)

Mutta (tribe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sources to show notability - I am aware this isn't my area though or language. Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 5 results show up if you search "Mutta people" on Google Books. [36] They do exist, but maybe they are a small community (I don't know) and not much has been written about them. However, I found 5 results on Google books alone. I haven't checked other venues like Scholar etc. If this is a keep, maybe changing it to Mutta people.Tamsier (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Mutta tribe definitely exists, i've been able to find some mentions of them on JSTOR and Google Scholar. Samoht27 (talk) 23:05, 30 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) 05:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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! 23:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophisticated Games

Sophisticated Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bintan Lagoon Resort

Bintan Lagoon Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. Weak independent significant coverage. The resort in question closed down due to COVID/bankruptcy. Uhooep (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. per WP:PROMO. The article and all references on that article seems to be promotion material of that resort. Also, the main contributor of the article, MozaicHotels&Resorts, is an employee of that resort and has been previously blocked for adding promotional content. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true at all, the promotional content they added was reverted. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of reliable independent coverage. I see nothing promotional in the article. The LEED ccertification is noteworthy in itself, and the new conference center got attention too. Being closed is irrelevant, although the closure also got coverage [37]. Perhaps it will reopen. But once notable, always notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 15 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! 08:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Kim, Jae-kyoung (2016-09-22). "Tropical paradise on Bintan Island". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

      The article notes: "With beautiful beaches and countless activities, Bintan Lagoon Resort (BLR) is an ideal destination for those wanting to have fun and socialize at a beach resort. In particular, for those seeking a getaway from hectic city life, this resort offers a complete set of experiences, ranging from sea sports and indoor activities to a variety of dining experiences and cultural tours. Set among 300 hectares of beachfront gardens overlooking the South China Sea, the Indonesian-style 470-room resort has the largest and longest operating beach on Bintan Island, part of the Riau Islands province, Indonesia. ... The resort, which was rebranded BLR a year ago,"

    2. Tan, Cheryl (2008-08-26). "The concierge". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

      The article notes: "Sprawl on the beach and enjoy the sun at the newly renovated Bintan Lagoon Resort. Just 55 minutes away by speedboat from Singapore, the resort overlooks the South China Sea and the archipelago of the Riau islands. ... There are all-terrain vehicles for rent, as well as badminton courts and an amusement arcade."

    3. Ma, Scarlet (2007-07-20). "Matter of course". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

      The article notes: "Bintan has become one of Asia's most popular golf destinations. The two 18-hole championship courses at Bintan Lagoon Resort were designed by golf legends Jack Nicklaus and Ian Baker-Finch. The Jack Nicklaus sea-view course makes the most of the natural landscape. The 13th hole which has a stream running through it, is the trickiest. The Ian Baker-Finch woodlands course covers dramatically undulating terrain."

    4. Yusof, Zaihan Mohamed (2020-08-20). "Bintan Lagoon Resort to close down as Bintan tourism struggles amid Covid-19 outbreak". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

      The article notes: "After 26 years, the popular getaway Bintan Lagoon Resort is bidding visitors a final goodbye, a victim of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has wreaked havoc on global travel and tourism. Mr Buralimar, head of the Bintan Tourism Office, said declining visitor numbers and tourism receipts were behind the demise of the 450-room, five-star resort. A July 31 report filed with the Bintan Regency Manpower Office showed that 500 employees of the resort have been laid off. The resort is about a 60-minute ferry ride from Singapore, in Lagoi on Bintan Island, which is part of Indonesia's Riau archipelago"

    5. Moss, Justin (2016-04-23). "Stay and play for the hols". The Straits Times. ProQuest 1783693336. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

      The article notes: "A perennial favourite due to its proximity and accessibility is the Bintan Lagoon Resort (BLR), which has 470 rooms, suites and villas. In July 2012 it launched its own ferry terminal which delivers you right to the resort. In addition to two championship 18-hole golf courses, the resort has over 50 land and sea activities (including jet skiing, tennis, archery and all-terrain vehicle rides and its own 1.5km beachfront."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bintan Lagoon Resort to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Appears to be an abundance of sources both in the article and available online, particularly in connection with the Movenpick takeover. Meets WP:NCORP. Slight issue with a bit of a promotional tone, but that can be fixed. GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:12, 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.

Chashni (TV series)

Chashni (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability issue. It's not even runed for 6 months. Xegma(talk) 07:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. TV Series ran on Star Plus and streamed digitally on Disney+ Hotstar. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NTVNATL. Reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NTV Imsaneikigai (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Redirect to StarPlus would be an acceptable WP:ATD but experience shows me it would likely end up in an edit war over the next year. The issue is not that the series exists, but the referencing. Notability is not based on WP:ITEXISTS. It is based on secondary "RELIABLE" sources. In this case, the sources cannot be considered reliable as they fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. No bylines and churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @User:CNMall41, i have updated the article with primary and better sources, hope now it is better. Please suggest improvements if any and please reconsider your vote. Imsaneikigai (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You included one reference which squarely falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Byline is "web desk." Not sure how much clearer I can make this. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These references [38] [39][40] [41] are primary sources and also have bylines. These also do not have any churnalism. Kindly check. @CNMall41 Imsaneikigai (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interview with the actress about the actress and only mentions her role, This is an interview with the director which is not independent nor does it have editorial oversight, This is a brief announcement about it losing a time slot, and This is about an actress and only verifies she plays a role in the show, not in-depth about the show itself]. As previously stated, there is enough to verify its existence but WP:ITEXISTS couldn't be used as a valid argument. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This [42] interview is of the actor (hero) and not director, also can you explain what do you mean by "editorial oversight" because this article is based on the interview taken by the media house itself with the actor. Thanks. Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Editorial oversight is about fact checking. Interviews like this are not. Similar to you asking me a question and me answering, there needs to be editorial oversight where there is not in this case. I could say that I am a billionaire but without editorial oversight, there is no way to verify that. Regardless, it is not indepdnent and none of this is significant. AGAIN, it only VERIFIES the existence of the show, not establishes notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but how can you say that there is no reference that denies WP:NEWSORGINDIA? because there are personalised interviews of the cast with the specific media house like Times of India and The Tribune! Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I understand what you mean by "no reference that denies NEWSORGINDIA." The references you just pointed out are not independent and only brief mentions so there is no need to even evaluate them under NEWSORGINDIA because they couldn't be used to establish notability regardless. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to tag the articles/references i was talking about. This [43] the interview of one of the main cast about the track with The Tribune, second [44] this tells about the development a particular cast member has put to fit in role. Also this reference [45] tells us about the production phase of the series and is reliable as per WP:ICTFSOURCES Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming ad nauseam and seems to be grasping at straws at this point. I realize you have a passion for this as the creator the page, but these have already been addressed. Interviews are not independent - PERIOD - It does not matter that they verify. One of the references is about an actor losing weight for the show. It only mentions him as having a part in the show, not anything about the show itself. The BH articles clearly falls under NEWSORGINDIA if you look at the byline. This I know you are familiar with as you talked about bylines above. Not sure what else to tell you at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:22, 20 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) 08:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A high profile tv series well sourced. Desertarun (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG as far as the basic skeleton of the article, but the plot summary needs to either get better sourcing or needs to be switched to a two-sentence logline. Nate • (chatter) 22:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Can those voting !Keep possibly point out the references that show notability that do NOT fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA? I am seeing nothing but. I will gladly change my !vote if someone is willing to show me what I do not see. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask what policy that is, as thats a redlink@CNMall41 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Me Da Wikipedian:, I fixed it. Two letters were transposed. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A number of the 'keep' !votes are on the weaker end, and I think CNMall41's question 6 days ago is a reasonable one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Article is well-sourced plus 6 month long run is not insignificant run. Pri2000 (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of beating a dead horse, can you point out the significant coverage that does not fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Republic of the Yoruba

Democratic Republic of the Yoruba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SUSTAINED. A lot. Give it a year and see what happens. Redirect is theoretically possible, but there is nothing in the article that hints clearly where to. It's impressive that despite this thing being a week old, WP/Commons already have access to it's flag and coat of arms. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This article should be left. What I implore editors to do is to help expand with the multiple RS references retrieved. I view the article as a current event that will be robust in the future. It's worth a stand alone article. No redirect! Caleb Ndu (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hi @Caleb Ndu: I've helped by bolding your keep vote. Whilse there are plenty of reliable sources [46], maybe it is Wikipedia:Too soon to have a stand-alone article for now. Mabye if we give it a year, the article might meet the sustainability guideline which is the nominator's argument. I see you are a new editor. Welcome to Wiki. Please don't be discouraged just in case this article ends up being deleted. I know it can be frustrating as a new editor when an article you've created and source ends up being deleted, but don't be discouraged. Read those two guidelines to help you understand. You did an amazing job on the article, but Wiki has its policies for article inclusion. So whatever happens, just keep up the good job and read the links to Wikipedia's policies posted on your talk page by an editor when they first welcomed you to Wiki. In the meantime, you can transfer the content on your own WP:Sandbox for example User:Caleb Ndu/sandbox whilst you give it time to see if it meets the sustainability guideline. If it ends up being deleted, at least you have it in your sandbox. I believe that is allowed.Tamsier (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article deleted by admin as WP:G5. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collision course

Collision course (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a phrase used, but I think it isn't a clear, notable concept and at best should redirect to Wiktionary. Long-time unreferenced. I would be interested to hear what others think. Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Panasonic Connect

Panasonic Connect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprod by @MSMST1543:. There are lots of press releases available, with announcements similar to what's already cited, but nothing in-depth about the company itself. I do not believe this article would be able to meet WP:NCORP. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:31, 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! 06:34, 20 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) 08:22, 27 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, Daniel (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete None of the sources seem to be in-depth and independent, just interviews and press releases. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only the financial figures are from press releases, all other citations are from independent media outlets. Bridges&Horizons (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wallflower (band)

Wallflower (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article since 2011. Searching for refs is difficult as there is a more successful band called "The Wallflowers", but even after including band members names into the search it seems like they received no coverage. Nothing in the article writeup suggests Wikipedia notability. InDimensional (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m the original article author. Happy to have article deleted. Band came to an end in 1998 with little notable activity.

(talk) 13:20, 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! 06:31, 20 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) 08:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Sometimes relisting helps come to a consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 07:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Timor

Hotel Timor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 08:47, 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! 06:30, 20 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) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems to be sufficient sourcing, this is particularly good. It's got quite an interesting history with the role it played in a number of conflicts in East Timor, which has been covered in numerous sources. AusLondonder (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sourcing from AusLondonder convinced me that the hotel is notable for the history of East Timor. The hotel is the location of flashpoints in the conflict such as reported in the Guardian 24 years ago. It is also the location where the referendum results are being read. I am quite convinced that the place itself is notable. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added additional sources, including the www.dn.pt article and the Guardian article, but never came back to !vote. This hotel is a character in the story of East Timor's independence, as supported by reliable sources. Oblivy (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has enough sources and seems notable Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:24, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bintan Agro Beach Resort

Bintan Agro Beach Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 08:32, 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! 06:29, 20 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) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

WBNM-LD

AfDs for this article:
WBNM-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; another diginet coatrack. Could merge with sister station WBNA. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:28, 27 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! 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Might as well say that because couldn’t find any sources. --Danubeball (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this music?

AfDs for this article:
Is this music? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable magazine/website. Unsourced since its inception and there is nothing to find online. Anarchyte (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Cfls (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cfls why do you wish to have the article deleted? Voting without a rationale is unhelpful. Mach61 21:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft deletion and a lack of deletion rationale from some participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are no reliable sources in the article. I could find nothing that resembled independent reliable sources in a web search, though they could be hidden by the name which is also a fairly common phrase. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 12:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Brazell

Kyle Brazell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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 cricketer player, to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found were 1 and 2, both from the same publication. JTtheOG (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'd say there's enough in those sources to keep the article for now, given the player has only debuted this season as there will likely be more coverage in the coming future. Wouldn't be against draftifying, but also a suitable redirect at List of South Australian representative cricketers also, so two suitable WP:ATDs. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think 1 and 2 are something which cover independently about the subject, plus there are other refs in the article. These can be considered as enough, since the player debuted just in this season, more coverage is likely to come in future if he continues playing. In terms of SNGs, it meets WP:NCRIC as well. RoboCric Let's chat 05:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The South Australian Cricket Association and Cricket Australia are not independent of the subject. The former directly administers the South Australia cricket team that he plays on, and is affiliated with the latter. Given his young age, I support draftification as an ATD, as well as the redirect suggested by Rugbyfan22. JTtheOG (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Although, they cover directly about the subject, the problem is that those are primary sources. Those contain useful information, so I linked those. However, apart from these two, I guess this is a secondary source which discusses about the topic, his education qualification and also his performance. I just wanted to say that since he debuted in this season, all these can be considered enough for a keep. Anyway, if the consensus reached by other editors is not to keep it, then I'll agree with a redirect. Thanks. RoboCric Let's chat 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, not enough independent secondary material to meet GNG but there may be in the near future.
    Redirect. JoelleJay (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Inclined to agree with Rugbyfan22 on this one. AA (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or redirect to the list of SA cricketers. Drafting this serves zero benefit really - it'll just end up getting deleted as no one will remember the draft is there. If there's not enough coverage for now then redirecting is the normal response in situations such as this - much easier to reverse a redirect and restore the page before adding the additional sources that are likely to appear if he continues to play. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is clearly no additional support for Deletion but no consensus yet as opinion is divided between Keeping, Drafting or Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 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! 06:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: To better summarize the sources in question, there are a couple sentences of coverage here, though it's mostly quotes, and four-ish sentences of coverage here. Both are from The Advertiser so they should be counted as one source. JTtheOG (talk) 04:24, 25 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) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television stations in Tennessee#LPTV stations. The argument that this meets GNG was refuted without subsequent rebuttal. Daniel (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WCKV-LD

WCKV-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 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! 06:18, 20 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) 08:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Closing as keep per HEY. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Green (Hollyoaks)

Anna Green (Hollyoaks) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking in sources since 2007, article only has two sources. One of the sources is WP:PRIMARY, so the article essentially has one source for proving notability. Nothing found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. (Oinkers42) (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Hollyoaks characters; otherwise, this may clearly be Fandom territory. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Unless the reception is expanded and/or analysis section added, this is a clear WP:GNG failure. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Noted Slgrandson and Piotrus' concerns - I will address them and work on the article.Rain the 1 10:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have made steady progress with the expansion so far. I have found a bunch of other sources from the archives that I will use to continue improving the article further over the coming days.Rain the 1 21:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per WP:HEY. RT1 has worked hard in massively improving and sourcing the article. There is now in depth development and reception and multiple sources showing notability and in depth coverage. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree that Raintheone has made significant improvements to the article. Keep per WP:HEY. Toughpigs (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As User:Toughpigs said above, significant improvements have been made and I think the article passes WP:GNG. – JuneGloom07 Talk 21:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have been working on the article since the nomination to address the concerns mentioned above. Given what I have added, the time of nomination vs now - I think there is enough sourced content for an article. There is real world content concerning casting, character creation, characterisation, plots with real world coverage, her role within the show is explained and reception has been added. Per WP:HEY it does not match the nominators reasons for deletion, it passes WP:GNG and I have used various sources meeting WP:SIGCOV. I feel keeping is the better decision here.Rain the 1 17:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Ojala

Anton Ojala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is fair coverage, but it does not have consensus to remain an article with no significant thing happening in years. Fails WP:BLP Villian Factman (talk) 06:42, 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! 06:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not seeing SIGCOV of this individual. Yilloslime (talk) 19:15, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 18:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch loanwords in Indonesian

List of Dutch loanwords in Indonesian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ehrmagerd, werds! As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki Poorly sourced too. It is a better idea to move this to Wiktionary. The Banner talk 15:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more opinions and to see if anyone knows how to "transwiki".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: this list is not a dictionary entry or anything like it. The question of Dutch influence on Indonesian is plainly encyclopedic, and the list supports that by demonstrating its extent. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic. Legitimate SPINOFF from Indonesian language#Loan words of Dutch origin. Good that these lists are now submitted piecemeal. gidonb (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talakayan Ng Bayan

Talakayan Ng Bayan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article unreferenced since 2009 and tagged as such since 2010. No good hits on GSearch, GNews and GNews Archives. Found several false positive as Talakayan ng Bayan means "People's Dialogue" and is used by several entities aside from DWBL. --Lenticel (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Lenticel (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I created the article almost 15 years ago without being aware about WP:GNG. I haven't touched the article since then. Safe to say, I barely found any source about the now-defunct radio show. ASTIG😎🙃 13:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:10, 20 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) 08:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since the creator agrees the topic isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish words of Nahuatl origin

AfDs for this article:
List of Spanish words of Nahuatl origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ehrmagerd, werds! Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I think this one could be merged into Nahuatlismo. At least some list would be OK to have there. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 18:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep intro is not a dictionary and lists is probably fine? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:43, 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! 06:34, 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! 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I’m not comfortable with so much material with no inline citations but I’m assuming most or all of the article content is potentially sourceable and the topic could be expanded. Doesn’t feel like TNT territory to me. Mccapra (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia has many lists like these and I don't see an issue with them, sure maybe it would be preferable that they be transformed into regular articles with more prose, but I don't think deletion is the solution here. The only real issue here is, as Mccapra pointed out, the lack of citations.★Trekker (talk) 02:15, 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.

Beetroot cake

Beetroot cake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cake that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge to Beetroot, where several recipes are mentioned; agree with nom it's not really notable in itself. This one can be added at Beetroot as it's reliably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there seems to be enough sources available, particularly if the scope is broadened slightly to include the use of beetroot as a supplement to other baked products (for reasons of extending the shelf-life, for example). Klbrain (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the relevant page. The article doesn't sit well alone, so redirecting is probably best. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 16:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I thought all of our "cake articles" (and "salad articles") had already passed through AFD but here is another.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I stumbled across two sources today that discuss this cake as a style of chocolate cake, and it made me remember there are multiple terms in English, depending on what variety of Englis -- beetroot vs. beet, for instance -- which complicates things when searching for information. And there may be some history around Red velvet cake. I'm waffling a bit, but right now I'm thinking rather than redirect to beetroot (or to chocolate cake), we can keep. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:33, 27 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, Daniel (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gates and Partners

Gates and Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear that notability has been established. Beland (talk) 04:00, 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! 06:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All the available coverage falls well within WP:ORGTRIV. I was not able to find anything more substantial. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Juest wanted to note, I'm alright with redirect, though I'm not so sure the other company is notable either. Don't really think there's anything to merge. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect into Kennedys Law into which Gates was dissolved. Why wasn't this suggested upfront? gidonb (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:02, 27 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) 05:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Kennedys Law: Trivia PR coverage doesn't meet WP:NCORP, appropriate to merge to parent company even though sources in Kennedys Law aren't really independent Robertjamal12 ~🔔 09:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article there are many articles about it being purchased by Kennedys and its cases prior to the purchase [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]. Also covered in multiple legal books including the European Legal 500 until its merger and Chambers UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfloving (talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K21JQ-D

K21JQ-D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 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! 06:06, 20 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) 08:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Open-access operator#France. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Speed

Kevin Speed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating on behalf of an IP who wrote the following rationale at WT:AFD:

I think there are 2 issues with this article, but I'm not sure of the procedure to follow so I prefer to post there : {1} It's a new compagny with no effective product or service: testing is expected to begin in 2026, before commercial service in 2028. The use of nearly only the futur tense or verbs with conditionnal or future meaning as ("would", "planned", "is expected"...) shows that. {2} It seems that the subject has no significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. International Railway Journal is a media of limited interest (trade magazine for railway industry) and the content seems more promotional than informative. Quechoisir is a French media with a national audience but the mention is anecdotical. La Tribune is a French economic media but the coverage is not significant. CycloneYoris talk! 02:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 20:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I think there could be potential for a prose section at Open-access operator§France (Or split out into X in France) with a few lines about this particular company, but I don't see enough sourcing for a standalone article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting but I'm leaning to a Redirect. Not sure what "ontitionnal" means though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KRLB-LD

KRLB-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François Mathieu

François Mathieu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NARTIST. Gedaali (talk) 02:09, 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! 06:01, 20 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) 06:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There are other potentially notable people with this name, including fr:François Mathieu, a French senator, as well as a Quebec sculptor. I don't see an article about this painter in the French Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Rajya Sabha election in Tamil Nadu

2013 Rajya Sabha election in Tamil Nadu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was an indirect election, fails WP:Notability. I suggest it be either merged or redirected to the page, 2013 Rajya Sabha elections. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:40, 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! 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Dwight Howard

List of career achievements by Dwight Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is another WP:NOTSTATS violation featuring indiscriminate trivia. Let'srun (talk) 01:00, 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! 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no good reason for this entire category of articles to exist. A person's notable accomplishments should be found in the article about that person. A person's non-notable accomplishments should be found nowhere. There will always be disputes whether a certain accomplishment is notable or not, and such disputes are valid and necessary. This type of article is essentially claiming that there's a whole new category "Sort-Of-Notable-Ish Accomplishments". There is no such category. If it turns out that articles about brilliant outliers with huge lists of notable accomplishments become too long to read, deal with those individually. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:16, 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. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Because of that, very little weight was given to keeps based on the assertion that the player will either play more matches or be the subject of additional coverage in the future. Further, the community has been clear that caps do not dictate notability. With both of those in mind, there is a clear consensus that the subject is not notable. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jensen Monk

Jensen Monk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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. Draftification would be an option, but this is a re-creation of an existing draft. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Professional rugby league footballer who made his professional debut in 2023, played the other day against fellow top level side Warrington in the Challenge Cup. Multiple sources within the article.Fleets (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources 1 and 2 are stats databases, while the next four are trivial mentions of the subject. BLPs require strong sourcing, which is why I draftified it the first time. JTtheOG (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Currently playing in the top tier with five appearances and will likely gain more. Currently borderline on notability for me but will likely be recreated if deleated. Mn1548 (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. He might be notable in the future but that would be speculating. Re-create if and when he plays a few more games and more sources are likely to exist. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources are exclusively namedrops, zero coverage here. Arguments to keep based only on his appearing in a particular league are strictly invalid per SPORTSBASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of London Broncos players. Fails GNG as there is no SIGCOV. References are routine coverage and stats databases. Frank Anchor 01:22, 10 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) 02:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - two further news sources added referencing academy days, move into first team, and first appearance of the 2024 season.Fleets (talk) 11:08, 13 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) 05:42, 20 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, ToadetteEdit! 18:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 18:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shamako Noble

Shamako Noble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A hip-hop musician and writer, admittedly his album was released a long time ago in internet terms, in 2004, but the most I can do is find proof on Discogs that it existed. There are a couple of online articles written by Noble, and a couple of brief mentions in a university radio article and the Seattle Times. His candidature in California politics is confusing, and only cited to a Green Party application. Overall this is more like a resumé and not suitable for Wikipedia, fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. I agree that neither of those are significant coverage, and the article is written like a resume, but that doesn’t justify deletion (it is possible, though, to cut down some of the text). There’s a book covering him here and an interview here.
The book coverage is probably not enough to float an article on its own, though, but there might be another source I haven’t found immidiately. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I just added the book I found to the Hip Hop Congress article. There might not be that much to merge. Changing my stance to Neutral, unless anyone can find more sources (which I'm not sure don't exist). Mrfoogles (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. In addition to the book above, he's profiled in Banjoko, Adisa (2004). "Political Activist, Shamako Noble". Lyrical Swords: Hip Hop and Politics in the Mix. YinSumi Press. ISBN 9780970177117. The book series Lyrical Swords and its author has been the subject of RS (see for example) He's also got coverage for his work as an activist in Berg, Laurie; Berg, Anna; Robinson, Pamela K.; Wills, Jane. "Economic Migrants: The Banana Supply Chain, and the London Living Wage: Three Cases Civil Society Activism on Poverty". In Kumar, Ashwani (ed.). Global Civil Society Yearbook 2009: Poverty and Activism. SAGE Publications. ISBN 9781446202562. All together, this clearly passes GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just posing the question, if the consensus was to Merge this article, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at the previous article, the majority of it was copy-pasted from his Green Party shadow cabinet biography here. I replaced that with the stuff I could cite. I don't know what's in the Lyrical Swords coverage and I can't find the mention of him in the Economic Migrants coverage, but from the sources I can see so far I think probably his article would be merged into Hip Hop Congress (co-founder) and possibly 2012 Republican National Convention (decent bit of coverage that's interviewing him participating in protests against it). Mrfoogles (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have full access to the books/journals so it's hard to make a firm judgement here, but my impression is that the coverage seems weak. Probably fails a strict reading of WP:NBIO.-KH-1 (talk) 02:26, 12 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) 02:35, 13 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) 05:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see anything which actually passes GNG here and I'm not sure the profiles above necessarily get there - perhaps a merge might work as an ATD. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 18:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Håvar Bauck

Håvar Bauck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bio appears promotional, lacks verification from reputable sources, and does not meet the General Notability Guidelines BoraVoro (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - There seems to be more than enough references that are reliable and the notability criteria is met with significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of each other to keep a posting about Håvar Bauck .I think that the page certainly is within the realm of the spirit of Wikipedia. Felixgfive (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • So this user claims a COI, but doesn't say with who, has just started their account, and has simply copied the notability language. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject easily passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Article is clearly written in WP:NPOV. He is also a recognized voice of the travel industry in Kenya. Does the nominator consider major sources like Nation Media, Capital Business or BusinessDay (WP:NGRS) not reliable because they are African? ANairobian (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Techcrunch is an obviously reputable and reliable source. Skift and Phocuswire (by Northstar Travel Group) are reliable international travel publications. Daily Nation and Business Day are two of the most reputable newspapers in Kenya and Nigeria respectively. Capital Business is also widely recognized as a reliable Kenyan business news source. Ventureburn (by Memeburn) is a major Pan-African entrepreneurship news source. 197.254.70.206 (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to concerns of canvassing. One account was registered after this AfD had begun, the other account is also only about two weeks old, and the third is an IP editor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Nobody asked me to write or vote here. I'm a new editor, but I've been observing and learning for a while. I came across the AfD in WP:KE and recognized the name because I've read about him, read several of his articles, and also seen him speaking at conferences. Definitely notable in my opinion. I personally don't think the article reads like an advertisement, but since at least two editors disagree, I took the liberty to make some small edits, toning down the language a bit and moving some supporting references immediately next to the parts about "first in Africa". Hope that does it!ANairobian (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment appears to have been WP:REFBOMBED with churnalism, press releases, self-published works and interviews. Does not appear to have any reliable sourcing. Can those seeking to keep this provide two reliable sources? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm expecting that this gets relisted again to be honest. I have similar concerns to you. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 is fine and a RS, the rest are iffy. I'm not sure we're at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Too many promo sources, hardly any in RS. A Gsearch brings up the usual social media, venture funding PR items, not much in Gnews. I can't find enough SIGCOV that isn't PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep few articles found notable but more to the company and as founder I find this one notable Norway article which is pretty much reliable, other 2 that discusses the founders can be generally accepted as secondary source, since company that he’s founded and of CEO has article over years. HarshalDhotre06 (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Make a policy based argument. It doesn't matter whether the company has an article or not, as notability is not inherited. WP:NINI Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for NINI I didn’t know about it yet. I’mm gonna make my comment in an hour based on NINI. HarshalDhotre06 (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While WP:NINI is an important policy, WP:AUTHOR and WP:ENT also state that artists and authors may derive notability from notable works. Wikipedia lacks elaborate notability policies for entrepreneurship, but it would make sense that people who have built notable companies (being a founder is much more than a mere association with a business) should derive some notability from their work. 196.207.188.98 (talk) 12:13, 27 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) 05:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep The editor did an amazing job writing the article with respect to neutrality, but one of the sources in particular concerns. This one [66]. Pretty strange! For a journalistic sit down interview, I would have expected a question and answer, with the questions on the article like this [67]. However, the article seems like it was written by the subject himself and handed to the publisher for printing. The article was evidently not written by the journalist profiled (hence the subject's use of single person throughout), and no sign of the journalist's input other than the brief intro.Tamsier (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. No clear consensus to delete after a month of discussion and relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imre Vallyon

Imre Vallyon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per the notability guidelines for authors, an author is notable if: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

None of the preceding apply in this case and almost all the sources in the article are not independent. There are almost no reviews of his work and the awards he has won are not notable. The only significant coverage is of his legal issues. Ynsfial (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Spirituality, Hungary, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the Stuff article certainly establishes that he's notable, although the focus of it is on his child molestation convictions. The award from the Ashton Wylie Charitable Trust might be notable given that it's in conjunction with the New Zealand Society of Authors, which is definitely notable.-Gadfium (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how the Stuff article establishes his notability as an author. It's mostly about his convictions as you said. I'm struggling to find any reviews or analysis of his work. Even if the award is given in conjunction with the NZSA I don't think it's enough to confer notability. Do you think it is? It might also be worth noting that Vallyon himself is a member of the New Zealand Society of Authors, a membership he pays for.~~~ Ynsfial (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gadfium is not arguing that he is notable as an author. Gadfium is talking about GNG. Schwede66 17:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I misunderstood, sorry. What other sources do we have for GNG then? We would need multiple. Will we be establishing his notability as a criminal if not as an author? or as a spiritual guru and leader? The only significant coverage in general seems to be that Stuff article, which focuses on his history of sexual assault. It's not unusual for a local newspaper to cover local criminals and crimes.
    The article consists of primarily sourced biographical information, a list of books with no analysis or reviews and a mention of a minor prize. If we were to remove the Scoop article, a local paper detailing his criminal convictions, what would his notability be based on GNG or otherwise? Ynsfial (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Source 6 is a book review in a RS, this in a Seattle newspaper discusses the author and his work [68], should be at basic notability. Discussed here [69] in a RS from New Zealand. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't consider Horror News Net a reliable source, see How to Get Your Book or Comic Reviewed on (HNN) Horrornews.net? and How to Expedite your Film Review? Their About us states:
    "HNN simply is a means for your film, product, book or studio to have existence on the internet. Whether bad or good, a product without existence in the search engines is simply without relevance. You work hard to create something, while we work hard to create a site that provides existence for your items."
    It's used as a reference on dozens if not hundreds of articles, so this should be brought up on the WP:RSN.
    The review in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is a republished one from Blogcritics. Archived discussions on WP:RSN seem to indicate that it hasn't really been considered reliable the times it was brought up since it seems to accept content from any blogger. The website's About us states:
    "Blogcritics gives writers the opportunity to gain an exponentially higher level of visibility (and thus, traffic and search rank) than they could ever achieve through their home blog or website alone." Mooonswimmer 01:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The book review is a terrible source. Many egregious spelling mistakes (''thru'' (!) and ''alot'' for example), it refers to the author by his first name and most importantly it's written by a random writer for a site that publishes paid book reviews as Moonswimmer pointed out. The other source is also unreliable. Are you still convinced they're enough for notability? Ynsfial (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. The two reviews mentioned above by Oaktree b (the only ones I could find) are published in unreliable sources and are likely paid pieces. I'd say the Stuff article counts towards WP:GNG, but it's all I could find. The two awards he's won are minor and of debatable notability. Mooonswimmer 03:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The stuff article and the Dutch-language NOS article establish WP:GNG in my opinion. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you expand on how these two articles establish his notability and what they establish his notability as? I agree the Stuff article would count even though it's a weak source considering it focuses on his crimes and a local newspaper reporting on crime committed by a local isn't so uncommon. The NOS article focuses on the Dutch branch of the FHL, which is not notable, breaking with its leader Vallyon. They mention a Dutch victim of his and mostly discuss the group and separation. There is some but little information to extract about Vallyon.
What is Vallyon notable as? As an author? Do you think the book reviews provided by Oaktree B are reliable? Or as the leader of the FHL? Or as a child molester? The latter is what the only two weak sources are focusing on. Are there any other sources? Ynsfial (talk) 14:17, 3 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre

Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although the title of the article is "Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre", it actually only lists the deeds of four women during the Tiananmen Incident, without summarizing the role of women as a whole in the Tiananmen Incident, this article is more like talking about the experiences of these four women during the Tiananmen Incident. 日期20220626 (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Politics, and China. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is on a viable-looking topic and is well referenced, and can be improved. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. There are a couple of articles that talk about gender in the Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, the Feigon article cited in the artile and there is an article from Radio Free Asia on the forgotten legacy of women and the protests. I agree with the nominator about how the text does not match the title of the page, and I do not think there is sufficient information for a stand-alone page, especially as the women mentioned in the article all have a stand-alone page, so no information will be lost. --Enos733 (talk) 18:06, 21 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) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per the nominator, the article is more like a compilation of the acts of some individuals rather than discussing the role of women. The article 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre is already very large hence I would oppose a merge. I think relevant information not appearing in the stand-alone articles should be copied across, for example the section on Wang Chaohua.
Golem08 (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Absolutely fascinating! Please do not merge with anything else. People can only read so much before they get bored and look for something else. Per the "1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre" navbox, there are numerous related articles. Won't hurt to leave this as is. — Maile (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the article isn't in the best condition with its over-focus on four particular women's participation rather rather than on summarizing more general academic synthesis of the women's history of the event in general, I find the essay Deletion is not cleanup persuasive in this case. Deleting an article about a valid topic makes it more difficult to improve later, and even in this non-ideal state the article remains educational and of interest. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the challenge once cleanup is completed (deemphasizing the sections on the four women), you are left with the one paragraph opening, containing only one reference. And much of that prose is unreferenced - (e.g. "many women contributed their opinions and leadership skills to the movement" and "Although women had substantial roles, they had different standpoints regarding the hunger strike movement"). While I agree this is the case, the expectation is that there would be general academic synthesis of the women's history of the event. But those sources do not seem to be there, even with a Google Scholar search. - Enos733 (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems to be a legitimate subject. Summarizing more general academic synthesis of the women's history of the event would be fine and possible, but we should also include all specific women/examples as they are right now. No significant removals of text would be needed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of communities served by Comcast

List of communities served by Comcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list of every town in American that has Comcast cable does not belong on wikipedia per WP:NOTDIR, Furthermore, the list is incorrect and outdated and even if updated accurate information could be found, this still serves no encyclopedic purpose. Rusf10 (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Business, Internet, and United States of America. Rusf10 (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many many many companies on Wikipedia list their service area(s). Perhaps not to the level of the city/town licenses which is what actually grants Comcast its service area. i.e. One canneot get XFINITY outside of city/town licensed to allow offer it. But should a company's service area be listed on Wikipedia is the better question? Many banks list the states they're in as they're licensed on the state level. Verizon lists their FiOS area markets. Charter Communications lists its markets. The satellite providers which are all in the same sky list their service areas. Radio/TV stations list the area/markets they're licensed to serve. Mobile companies list the states they are licensed to operate in. There's LOTS of DIR on Wikipedia. For example: List of countries with Burger King franchises. To that logic wouldn't people just goto BK.com and look up what Burger Kings are nearby? CaribDigita (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTDB. No analysis or summary is offered; the article is just a long bulleted list. Anyone searching for this information would just get it from Comcast, who would have a more up-to-date list anyway. Consensus has been that standalone lists of airline destinations are not encyclopedic enough for WP, and I think this article is very similar in concept to that. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTDIR and minimal coverage of the topic (this is about as good as secondary coverage gets). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDB. Unencyclopedic content. AusLondonder (talk) 10:20, 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 keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Software law

Software law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been sitting here unsourced and stubbed for years and years. If there is anything notable about "software law", it could just be a section in information technology law or similar article. ZimZalaBim talk 03:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Software. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. Has signficant coverage in Google Books, Google Scholar and elsewhere. There are entire books [70][71] [72] [73] [74] [75], and even entire periodicals (such as the Sofware Law Journal [76]), on this subject. There are also many entire periodical articles. The article is not unsourced now. The topic is very easily independently notable from information technology law, of which it is only part, and not even the majority. Being a "stub" is not a policy or guideline based grounds for the deletion of a topic that satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for editing it, I remember seeing it a few months ago and being shocked how short it was. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per the sources uncovered by James. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Information technology law as a section. Even with improvements, this is still minimal stub quality, and can be expanded within the broader context of information technology law until there is something to break out into a more complete article. BD2412 T 01:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That approach violates the guideline WP:PAGEDECIDE, which says "an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page". GNG creates a presumption that this topic should have an article, and in view of the language of PAGEDECIDE, there would have to be at least a policy or guideline to rebut that presumption in this case. That approach also goes against the advice of all three criteria of the essay WP:NOTMERGE. The most likely outcome of that approach will be that information technology law, which is already a large and unbalanced page, will become too large (violating WP:TOOBIG) or more unbalanced (violating WP:PROPORTION) or will omit relevant material (and the recent removals of content from that article probably already violate WP:PRESERVE, due to the removal of entire countries that ought to be included, such as the UK and India). James500 (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bandanwara

Battle of Bandanwara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the reliable sources WP:RS refer to the military conflict as the "Battle of Bandanwara," nor do any historians recognize it by that name. The title is a fabricated one, which contradicts the criteria for creating an article about a military conflict. The article does not meet the notability WP:GNG, as the sources merely mention it as a military conflict, without dedicating even a single page completely to it. Moreover, there is no record of a battle called the "Battle of Bandanwara" in the specified year mentioned in the article. Imperial[AFCND] 08:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On receiving intelligence of his march, the Maharana decided to intercept him on the border of Mewar. For this purpose he despatched a large army headed by the Chiefs, Chauhan Devabhan (Kothariya), Rathor Suratsingh, Sanga (Devagarh), Dodiya Hathisingh, Gangadas (Bansi), Jhala Sajja (Delawara), Rathor Jaisingh (Badnor), Samantsingh (Bambhora) etc, In an engagement held at Bandhanwara Ranabaz Khan together with his chiefs were slain and the Maharana succeeded to retain the paraganas in his possession

. These events are dated to February/March I711. So at least one historian mentions it by this name (give or take an 'h'!) and considers the date correct. Suggesting a military engagement isn't a battle of some kind seems a bit of a stretch. And frankly, suggesting that this is fabricated could be interpreted as an aspersion, as it suggests a deliberate hoax. Which is clearly not the case.
Other sources also discuss the battle in the context of military and political history (e.g. The Grenadiers, a Tradition of Valour, Mewar and the Maratha Relations, 1735-1818 A.D., Pratap, the Patriot: With a Concise History of Mewar), and even culturally (e.g. Paintings from Rajasthan in the National Gallery of Victoria etc). I'm afraid this nomination makes some curious claims, claims which are directly contradicted by reliable sources. ——Serial Number 54129 14:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Serial Number 54129. Could you please provide the source that explicitly mentions the name "Battle of Bandanwara"? It's important to note that these are only Google snippet notes, which are often available even for minor skirmishes. The battle must be thoroughly described in reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. If the event meets the GNG as mentioned above, we could consider renaming the article or merging it with one of the parent articles. If you could develop the article so that we can submit it for review through WP:HEY, and if it meets the GNG, we can move it to the appropriate title. The current status of the article does not meet the standard requirements. Imperial[AFCND] 16:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ImperialAficionado, thank you; I have been here a while now, so I flatter myself. I have some small understanding of the deletion process. Firstly, the name. If you have an issue with the article title, that does not mean it is a hoax or that it must be deleted. Spellings and linguistic cultures and traditions change over time, and the only difference I can see is that occasionally, sources insert an 'h' or possibly an 'n'. Neither of those is egregious enough to claim that, therefore, it does not exist. If you think the title needs adjusting, start a talk page discussion, go to Requested Moves or even be bold and move it yourself; redirects are cheap, especially redirects from misspellings. Again, if you wish to dispute that a battle was really a skirmish, fine: but again, that is merely a content dispute and can be resolved through our usual consensus-building processes. As for Google snippets, that depends on where you are in the world and what Google will let you see. It varies with jurisdiction, so what you might see, I might not, and vice versa. Apart from demanding other work to improve it per HEY, etc., perhaps address the actual purpose of AfD, which is to demonstrate a lack of notability; your nomination fails to do so convincingly. Indeed, it is procedurally flawed: titles and minor errors are not grounds for deletion. A thorough reading of WP:BEFORE explains what is expected of a nominator. Fundamentally: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. ——Serial Number 54129 14:56, 7 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) 13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I would expect a "speedy keep and suggest withdrawal" response to have extremely good sourcing, but I'm not seeing that here. Is that quote supposed to be significant coverage? It's two sentences! So, that doesn't help us show notability. What about the others? I don't see any sigcov in that snippet from The Grenadiers, and what I do see suggests that all we'll get from that is the place name and a year. I could go pull it from the library and check it, but it's only the one hit, so that doesn't seem promising. Likewise, I could go order up Mewar and the Maratha Relations, but the snippet I can see on google books doesn't fill me with optimism; I tried searching from another angle and it appears to be about a sentence there also. What I can see of Pratap, the Patriot suggests the result is a false positive, since it's talking about Bhim Singh of Mewar. I get nothing from a journal search of my library, effectively nothing from google scholar, and this sole result from JSTOR (someone less blind than I am will have to find the references to "Battle of Bandanwara" on pp 4 and 5). -- asilvering (talk) 03:01, 12 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) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep From the sources cited here, Pratap, the Patriot is not a false positive. It is not referring to Bhim Singh of Mewar, but referring to Bhim Singh (Bhimsi) Kothari of Begun, who took part in this battle. Har Bilas Sarda had written about the same Bhim Singh Kothari [here] who took part in this battle. I can add these sources as well on the page. History quester (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha, thanks for the clarification. I'll go check on Pratap, the Patriot at the library, then, to see if there's significant coverage there. Regarding the source you found, the closest it comes to naming a battle is The next morning, when the two armies met on the banks of the Khari river. It doesn't even seem to give a date, beyond the regnal years of Maharana Sangram Singh II. It looks like this is indeed the same battle, going by the details in the wikipedia article, so I think we have one good source now, which isn't enough for a WP:GNG pass yet, and additionally raises concerns about the title of the article. I'm not seeing "Bandanwara" anywhere anywhere in this source you've found. Did I just miss it? -- asilvering (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not the case as initially raised that there is no record of this battle, or it is not referred by this name. This request doesn't qualify for WP:AFD. There are more than one source which have mentioned this battle or have references to it. There are sources already added on the main page, listing down other sources here, which I am adding to the main page.
    From the sources provided by Serial Number 54129,this battle is mentioned in the below sources.
    History quester (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gay.co.nz

Gay.co.nz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No demonstrated notability. In a web search and investigation of available newspapers, only two potential sources were found: a survey output which did not discuss the website, but did include it in a list of websites when asking gay men about their use of various websites (PDF), and a guide book with only the line “Provides travel information aimed at gay, lesbian and bisexual visitors, and vets businesses for standards of service and hospitality.” (see in book search: [77]). Personally, I do not see this as sufficient to meet “significant coverage”. For comparison, a similar site, gaynz.com, did at some point at least gain coverage in NZ media: [78] — HTGS (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Traumnovelle (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saugeen Stripper

AfDs for this article:
Saugeen Stripper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NEVENT - none of the sources in the external links are still functional. It does not appear to be a notable event. Given the last AfD occurred in 2006 (result was no consensus) it is appropriate for the question of notability to be tested again. Dan arndt (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ without prejudice against renominating in one month, when we have a better idea about lasting significance. Discussion about possible merger can continue on the Talk page. Owen× ☎ 17:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello

Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the deep reasoning you presented. -A876 (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please bring forward to this page the pre-existing discussion relating to deletion of this article from the article's talk page. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello -A876 (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They would be aware of this discussion. SWinxy (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is/are "they"? Can't you communicate more precisely? Whoever you mean by "they", are you saying there is no value in this ancestor page explicitly referencing previous discussion? Is it better to expect editors to find prior discussion for themselves (or not) instead of expending a few mouse clicks to put prior discussion in front of them? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A plausible target for merging would be Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Self-immolation. SWinxy (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • But is the immolation really a "reaction"? I thought the trial merely provided a highly visible venue with numerous television reporters present. Is there some other connection? You can reach and say that both subjects are attention-seeking paranoids complaining of conspiracies and unjust persecution by parties including past and present U.S. presidents, but the particulars of the alleged conspiracies seem sufficiently different. Anyway, Agree, not notable 97.102.205.224 (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep. You may be correct in saying that the self-immolation isn't a valid or rational or something-else reaction to Trump's criminal trial - fair enough - but how does that make it "not notable" in itself? Clue - it does not. This discussion is about wiping the self-immolation out of (Wikipedia) history: it is *not* about whether or not it is a valid/meaningful/rational *reaction* to any trial. That is a notion introduced after the event by @SWinxy. You have sadly and blatantly been led by Swinxy and you have conflated two objectively unrelated things leading you to "agree" that Azzarello's impromptu cook-out is "not notable". Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Flusapochterasumesch: To clarify, I wasn't trying to conflate the issues, I just thought the fact it wasn't a reaction was a bit non-obvious and so justified a response. The non-notability seemed so obvious to me I didn't think any detailed justification was required, so I just said "yes, of course @ElijahPepe is right." I did not mean (but wasn't clear in my writing, sorry) to imply that the long rationale justified my agreement.
The reason I think it's obviously non-notable is Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The incident is shocking enough to have received a burst of attention, but it seems obvious it won't be WP:SUSTAINED#SUSTAINED, won't be important history, and thus will fail the notability requirement. Full discussion of what it takes to make a single event notable at Wikipedia:Notability (events).
clearly applies here. If there are grounds for "additional enduring significance", please specify; I can't see any. This is one case where the disconnectedness is relevant. If the immolation were indicative of the public's depth of feeling about Trump's trial, it would be relevant to that larger, notable, issue. But someone photobombing the reporters in a particularly gruesome way has to be independently notable. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree. Also, Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Cwater1 (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I'm biased since I created the article about Aaron Bushnell but I already see enough news about this incident that I think it will warrant an article. That being said, only time will tell. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has been covered by multiple reliable sources and was not a reaction to the trial itself.
MountainDew20 (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As MountainDew20 stated, the event has been covered by multiple reliable sources and is gaining notability. MemeGod ._. (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - From the sources I've read, Azzarello seems to have had a complex political motivation behind his actions that went beyond merely reacting to Trump's trial. Only time will tell, of course, but it's a reasonable assumption that this incident will continue to be notable enough to deserve it's own article. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I've read, I feel it's safe to say that Azzarello's motivations were indeed complex; however, the extent to which they were political is open for debate. Mental illness is tragic. DS (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying but politics and mental illness are not mutually exclusive topics, and both of them are complex. 208.38.225.32 (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a clear case of WP:RAPID. Literally only 1 day has passed since the event. Not even the initial news coverage has passed, and we're talking about lasting notability that can't really be proven until at least a few weeks later. 106.71.58.30 (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since no actual rationale for deletion was given. Cortador (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or more likely reassess in 7 days. Notability is unclear at this point. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a rare media case where graphic detail was caught in real time. I have also seen criticism in how security was handled around the scene. But most of all, this appears to have WP:DEPTH especially how the NYT went into detail about Maxwell's life. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Headline news on all major media outlets. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We're about 24 hours on from the self-immolation event, and the individual has now died. If this WP article didn't already exist and there was a debate about whether to create an article, I would be profoundly apathetic. However, the article does exist and the debate is about whether or not to delete it. In my opinion, it's a perfectly written/structured article that very succinctly details the event. It mentions exactly when and where it occurred - outside of a New York court - and it mentions a notable case being heard in the court at the time of the event. The protester chose his time and location to link his protest to the ongoing trial - going by the protester's writings it is clear that he believed his protest "mattered" in the context. However, it appears the protester was severely mentally unwell - while he perhaps thought the world would applaud his "stand" and understand the "importance" of his actions, it seems he was utterly wrong. The article doesn't give any validation to the individual's apparent reason for his protest, which I think is absolutely proper. Will the protest change anything? Probably not. Hopefully not. And the article doesn't suggest it will. I guess what I am saying, to summarise, is that this was a significant event, but it had no notable outcome (except the death of the protester and some burn marks on the sidewalk). Self-immolations in the past have changed the course of history. This one hasn't. There's something notable about the fact that a person's mental health led him to believe that burning himself to death for his "beliefs" would effect change and give him a place in history. I suspect it will: but only from the perspective of research & discussion into how contemporary society (and the internet) contributed to such erratic and meaningless self-harm. Also, books will no doubt be written about the trial in the court near to where Maxwell killed himself. And some of those books will no doubt mention Maxwell's suicide. Creating an article on Maxwell's pointless protest would be pointless. But deleting the existing article would be more pointless - it has value and it detracts from nothing/no-one.--Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This subject is undeniably notable and has had significant coverage. A Google search for "Maxwell Azzarello" on the news tab currently returns "about 7,840 results". Even if Google's result numbers are not accurate, you can clearly see that there have been dozens of articles in different publications, all of which are about this incident. GranCavallo (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, wiki is not a newspaper, will not pass the 5 year or even 1 year test. We do not cover every time someone with mental health issues tries to take their life in a spectacular way, and just because it grabs headlines for a day does not make it notable for the purpose of this project. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I second Dreameditsbrooklyn's arguments. —Agentbla (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly significant coverage, I would argue that this does pass the 5 year rule when looking back at the overall Donald Trump trial. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York or List of political self-immolations. This event doesn't have sufficient independent notability to merit a full article. I know it has independent coverage, but there isn't much more to say about the event than what there already is in the article. Unless some major bombshell drops, there won't be more to say in the future. 187.190.191.57 (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID NAADAAN (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not notable?! This is international news in multiple languages. Have we become this jaded? At the very least, merge it with the Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York. Trillfendi (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable person, article is exploitation of an unwell person.→StaniStani 16:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, this is a person who deliberately committed suicide in a difficult, inconvenient and highly public fashion, for the explicit purpose of drawing attention to his ideological beliefs -- what is the exploitation? Acknowledging his existence is exploiting him? jp×g🗯️ 18:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't this go against WP:NOTCENSORED? I don't think the article shouldn't stay up just because the deceased has been deemed "unwell". Yannkemper (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies to both of you. Notability or the lack of it is of course a Wikipedia policy. Basic human decency is of course not a Wikipedia policy.→StaniStani 04:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am saying nothing about policy: I am saying that your claim is false and your argument is bad. To reiterate, your argument here is that you think this guy was nuts, so "human decency" dictates that we go out of our way and bend the rules to prevent anybody from reading the thing that he thought was so important he set himself on fire to get people to read? What in the world are you talking about? Decency dictates we do the exact opposite of this. jp×g🗯️ 07:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To establish notability on fr.wp it is necessary to have two secondary sources (at least national press) primarily focused on the subject of an entry which are separated by at least two years. On en.wp, insofar as the person is recently deceased and was low-profile before the event WP:BLP1E still applies in order to protect family from unwanted attention. WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NOTPROMO (articles seem to be focused on his substack) all apply and override newspaper coverage the day of and the day after the event. If two years from now, there are scholarly (or even journalistic) treatments of this event we could revisit the question of whether this passes the so-called 10-year test, but for the time being BLP concerns and violations of 3 different subsections of WP:NOT "trump" newspaper coverage (even if international) on the day of the one event. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 16:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't fr.wp and WP:BLP1E wouldn't apply because the person is no longer living. I want to point out that WP:10Y is neither a policy nor a guideline. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to reread WP:BLP1E (you are wrong) and WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 16:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mixing this up with WP:BIO1E, there is in depth coverage of this subject as per the references used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I see where you a coming from. You have perhaps not put as much importance as I have on the fact that the person's name is in the title of the entry. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 17:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither BLP1E nor BIO1E applies here as this article is about the event. The point of those is that if someone's only known for one event, we should write our article about the event, instead of about the person. That's how this article is written. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article title should define what the article is about. If the entry is not about the individual, it should not contain the individual's name. If it were only about the event, it would be titled "Self-immolation in Collect Pond Park".-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 03:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:BIO1E. An event like this makes headlines for obvious reasons, so the amount of coverage is not revolutionary. Is every mentally unwell person who deliberately sets themselves on fire worthy of a Wikipedia article now? 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 16:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — There is already a section in the article Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York ("#Self-immolation") where the whole thing can be inserted. Maxwell Azzarello's death was ghastly, needless, sensational, and intentionally carried out so that it would be associated with a major news story, but I don't think it is a notable news story in itself. It was just another poor victim of the conspiracy theory culture that has been festering in the US for some time. It deserves a mention as a further lamentable example of death by conspiracy theory, along with, perhaps, all the dead antivaxers who swore by Ivermectin, but I can't imagine that an article about Maxwell Azzarello could ever expand beyond what it already is. Kelisi (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York. This is a Kenneth, what is the frequency? kind of subtopic, which appropriately appears in Dan Rather. Viriditas (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - This is exactly what WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, etc. are meant for. With absolutely any article on a new topic, we get a choice between WP:DELAY and WP:RAPID. Best we can do is estimate whether the requirement of sustained coverage and is highly likely to be met and whether other considerations like WP:NOPAGE and WP:BLP push us to err on one side or the other. In this case, I'm just not seeing the level of coverage I'd expect for lasting coverage. There's not virtue to leaving a stand-alone article alone and waiting rather than merging it and spinning it out later if deserved. It's the latter that we should be deferring to anyway when there's an obvious place to cover it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The event has attracted international coverage thus meets the criteria for notability. Spudst3r (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No reason to think that this self-immolation is not notable if Aaron Bushnell's was.LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds a lot like WP:ITEXISTS. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 21:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Someone needs to write an essay "Wikipedia is a Newspaper" because every time we have some event like this, someone rushes to write an article, others rush to insert all the news coverage, and the inevitable AfD is filled with outraged "keep" voters, because "of course it's notable". But arguments that it is covered by international news sources do not recognise that every single source being presented is a primary source, and does not count towards notability. Is this notable? Will historians be writing about this event or this person? Who knows. We are WP:TOOSOON by a long way and Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Or at least, that's the policy. But policy can take a running jump, because all these news reports mean it must be notable, right? ... right? I'll be outvoted. This will be kept. Maybe I'll just start essay writing. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, fails WP:GNG (primary sources) and also WP:N under arm 2 (because it fails WP:NOT). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be WP:NOTNOTNEWS, which would mandate that everything that happens with at least one reliable secondary source must have an article written for it ...  • Bobsd •  (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, leaning towards delete, as per rationales above. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Enough noteworthiness through the number of articles and enough content for the page from his substack/motivation that there's really no reason to delete Gabecube45 (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The idea that we need to delete this article due to humanitarian concerns is very unconvincing to me. To be clear: this is a person who deliberately committed suicide in a difficult, inconvenient and highly public fashion, for the explicit purpose of drawing attention to his ideological beliefs, and getting people to read what he had to say about the global conspiracy to destroy the world economy and install a totalitarian dictatorship. I don't think his claims are true, but whatever. Frankly, this is less destructive than the other thing people have been doing the last few years to guarantee notoriety and attention to their ideas, and we seem to love those sickos enough to write a novel on request whenever they do that -- at any rate, maybe I will change my mind on this and want to merge the article in a year or so, and I look forward to chiming in on that then. jp×g🗯️ 19:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E. Merge to List of political self-immolations seems reasonable since the fact has happened and he did espouse many beliefs that were political in nature.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, leaning on merge with reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York as per above. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 20:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or reassess in the future. Easily fits WP:RAPID. We will know more in the future about whether this keeps popping up, but for now, I believe we should keep it. You can see the notability difference between Azzarello's immolation and an immolation like Arnav Gupta's due to Azzarello having publicized his own views and thoughts. But I still believe we should reassess this soon. Deleting it now is silly in my opinion. Réunion! 22:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E (BLP is extended to recent deaths). The New York Times analysis article provides a little information about his life, but in the context of his having become incoherent in recent years, and the article itself demonstrates that his action has no effect on the trial or the public discourse. The overwhelming majority of coverage is just the news event. The most this merits is a half line or line in our article on the trial, as part of a mention of the people who've been gathering with banners in the park, and I think if there is such a mention, it should not include his name. No mention in Self-immolation unless there is some lasting effect or discussion. Privacy concerns outweigh any argument for inclusion. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would pass WP:SUSTAINED given that major sources like the BBC are still talking about him 24+ hours later. [84]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an erroneous interpretation of WP:SUSTAINED. If news sources cover an issue for a few days, that does not mean that it is not a brief burst of coverage, brief bursts of coverage do not have to be confined to a single day. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the event received significant coverage in US major media outlets and also serious international coverage. Yodabyte (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • obvious WP:NOTNEWS delete All those crying "significant coverage!" are ignoring what policy actually says, particularly the part about sustained coverage. There's going to be a flicker of further over the next couple of days as reporters try to get a handle on the details of this guy's problems, but unless something surprising is revealed, he's going to be a minor sideshow in Trump's trial. The immediate rush to write an article on any news development, particularly something shocking like this, is just not what an encyclopedia does. Mangoe (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does seem like there's a conversation worth having along the lines of: "Does setting yourself on fire guarantee your place in the historical record on Wikipedia?" Looking at similar articles, there's little coverage after a week or two beyond loop-closing stories and the occasional "remember when this happened" in articles about different subjects. There's also another type of brief mention when they come up: when someone else, seeing all the coverage this sort of act attracts, does the same thing and attracts another news cycle of attention. I know, I know, WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia is a tertiary source, but let's not pretend decisions here don't matter, either.
    I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have this sort of article; I'm arguing that if we find ourselves remotely in the gray area of notability (which is typically the case of any incident that just happened), then subjects like someone killing themselves as a protest are where we should be erring on the side of caution rather than "it's getting some news coverage; let's wait and see". FWIW, I'm pretty sure I've said the same thing about e.g. mass shootings, too... not that Wikipedia doesn't reliably rush to cover those as soon as the first tweets go out. :/ — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rhododenrites's reasoning sums it up. KlayCax (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York is not an appropriate target for a merge because Azzarello's self-immolation was not the result of Trump's Manhattan trial, but a broader populist conspiracy theory. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit off topic, but it's pretty clear that the guy had a form of psychiatric illness, rather than conspiracy theories, per se. KlayCax (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / merge (to List of political self-immolations). won’t stand a five-day test, let alone the five-year test. - SchroCat (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell and Self-immolation of Wynn Bruce for recent non-previously notable figures who self-immolated and got articles as a result. Raskuly (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clear case of wikipedia editors' TDS. "but it's pretty clear that the guy had a form of psychiatric illness, rather than conspiracy theories, per se. " He clearly did not. He writings are (were, he died) clear and coherent. He posted a lot on stupidpol subreddit. He was funny and nice. 2A00:1370:8184:46D8:6C66:496A:DFA7:5A09 (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC) — 2A00:1370:8184:46D8::/64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    None of this is a valid argument for keeping the article. And unless you knew him personally (which you obviously did not), you're really not qualified to make an unverified comment on his mental state of mind prior to his death. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 16:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aaron Bushnell can have his own article, but not this guy? I think not. 2604:4C40:2F:F8D4:E0D5:97CF:D6A0:44FB (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is a fair comparison at all Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close per WP:RAPID. I would not have created the article and I suspect, in the fullness of time, the article will be merged somewhere more appropriate per WP:RECENTISM, but we're kidding ourselves if we can assess whether this meets WP:GNG (that is, both notability and non-exclusion under WP:NOT) so soon. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 12:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    cf. newly-created WP:MERITPRONGS IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is notable, and has enough media mentions to not fall under WP:RECENTISM. Swordman97 talk to me 19:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We should not be reporting the self-harm of a mentally-ill person. WWGB (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great rationale /s Lettlerhello • contribs 18:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close per Ignatius. AFD is not a crystal ball; many people are saying that this article will or will not be relevant in a couple weeks' time, but at this point it's too early to tell. If the coverage as of now is indeed the only lasting coverage, this article should be condensed into a section on Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York. If more, significantly different coverage comes along, then we should keep it.
-insert valid name here- (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a section under Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York. Maybe we could even put a link under Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell as it seems Azzarello was inspired by him. [85] Wafflefrites (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Merge to Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Self-immolation or List of political self-immolations Yes, it did receive coverage in the news, but a lot of the coverage is WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources, and that does not automatically make a news story notable. Per Rhododendrites, Dreameditsbrooklyn, and others above, I'd actually argue that this violates WP:NOTNEWS. For a news story to be notable, it needs to have WP:LASTING effects, which haven't been proven here yet. Furthermore, I have WP:BLP1E concerns about the existence of this article. While it's unfortunate that this man was driven to self-immolate based on a conspiracy theory, this would be a WP:MILL event if it were not for the venue of the self-immolation, outside a courthouse in NYC where Trump is being tried. I'm not seeing why we need a separate article, as opposed to mentioning this incident in another article, per WP:NOPAGE. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York. This will probably be forgotten in a few days, won't get WP:LASTINGCOVERAGE and the few paragraphs we can really use will fit well there. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it merged somewhere, I don't think it should be there. If you read his manifesto, it is not Trump-centric at all, rather it's anti-crypto and other self-identified ponzi type schemes, which he saw as an overall conspiracy. List of political self-immolations is a better place (where it already is mentioned)  • Bobsd •  (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To the list of political self-immolations. While this event is certainly getting a lot of coverage, it is too soon to predict if it will have lasting notability. That being said, since this event is ultimately entirely unrelated to any wider political issue and was fueled by a random conspiracy theory, I personally find it very unlikely that any further discussion of it will be occurring months or years from now. There's really not much to say aside from the fact that it happened and that it was shocking but ultimately meaningless. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you know that it was "meaningless" due to analysis in secondary sources, so this is a keep argument. Abductive (reasoning) 20:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no secondary sources. No one has presented any. It is all news reporting, which is primary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for the numerous valid reasons already above the basic obviousness of WP:RAPID. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) "
  • Strong Keep I am actually surprised that this was even nominated for deletion. At least in its current state it is a well-written description of a notable, but separate, part of a historic event in US politics. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, due to analysis in secondary sources as a "meaningless" death. Abductive (reasoning) 20:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What secondary sources? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you had better read up on that. Abductive (reasoning) 21:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At AfD it is customary to discuss and evaluate the sources. Which sources are secondary? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York, as its own Section of that Article. This information does belong on Wikipedia somewhere, but I agree that it needn't be its very own Article. Make it a Section of the one I just linked. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons provided before Xlicer1 (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable very notable. It was headline of the news around the world, it was discussed on Twitter a lot. But after reading some of the comments about recentism / notability / etc I'm not so sure anymore. In general I think wikipedia should be more permissive, when in doubt retain. Stefek99 (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shwapnopuron

Shwapnopuron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Mahtab Utsha

Asif Mahtab Utsha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is very poorly sourced. The photos and content suggest a conflict of interest. It should be deleted for the lack of notability and verifiable sources. Many tangentially linked sources are gathered to create a wall of references, but none cover the subject in-depth, which is needed to prove notability. The subject has no claims of significance and does not hold any office that would confer automatic notability. There is one event coverage of his contract not being renewed at a private university allegedly over homophobic and transphobic comments, which generated some coverage but would fall under Wikipedia:Oneevent. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sexuality and gender, Education, Islam, and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The person in question is one of the most searched person in Bangladesh. He is covered in almost all the mainstream media and the links of those media is referred. The pictures in question can easily be collected from his page and should serve as further evidence. And therefore, to suggest the 'photos' suggest a conflict of interest is not true.
    Given the importance and relevance of this figure in Bangladesh, I recommend the article to stay. Nafisa06 (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Popularity is not the same as notable. Let us do a source review of the 78 sources present. Source 1: One line mentions the subject. Source 2 about his contract not being renewed at a private university and mentions the subject's transphobic comments. Source 3 and 4 have one line about him. Source 5 is about a University English club speaking competition in which the subject came third. Source 6 does not mention the subject despite it being used to claim subject co-authored booklet. Source 7 is a YouTube video. Source 8, an academic article written by the subject in the Philosophy and Progress journal, could not find an impact factor. Sources 9 to 28 does not mention the subject. Source 29 is a YouTube video blog. Sources 30 to 34 do not mention the subject. Source 35, YouTube video of a talkshow. Source 36 is a YouTube video of an interview with the subject. Source 37 is about subject's contract not being renewed. Source 38 is a YouTube video. Source 39 is a non-reliable source about the subject of tearing a high school literature book for featuring a story about a transwoman. Source 40 is a news report on YouTube. Source 41 is a critical opinion piece criticising the subject for his transphobic and homophobic comments. Source 42 has one line about the subject. Source 43 is a news report on his termination. Source 44 is a news article about a anti-LGBTQ rally calling for subjects reinstatement. Source 45 is not a reliable source. Source 46 is a news article about his termination. Sources 47 and 48 are about his termination. Source 49 is a duplication of source 3. Sources 50 to 62 do not mention the subject. Source 63 is a news report about the street protest against Israel, in which the subject was one of the speakers. Sources 64 to 70 do not mention the subject. Source 72 triggered my anti-virus. Sources 73 to 75 do not mention the subject. Source 76 is a Facebook post by subject. Sources 77 to 78 do not mention the subject.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- 43 out of 78 sources, more than half, do not mention the subject.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A stack of sources can be found in this article, but the sources have not written independently about the individual and most of the sources do not even trace the individual's name. Imitation of WP:NOTEBOMB. Ontor22 (talk) 06:21, 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 04:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Badun

Badun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All references lack WP:SIGCOV, so fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Denmark. UtherSRG (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I successfully PRODed this article after I couldn't find any sources showing NMUSIC was met. As the sources added after undeletion consist of a wordpress blog and discogs listings, I remain convinced of that. Mach61 02:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this page appears to be the pet project of the editor Janusnovak. Janus Novak also happens to be the name of Badun's drummer, so we may have an undeclared COI here. Richard3120 (talk) 23:43, 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 delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Pantano

Daniele Pantano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is a poet, translator and academic. He is not sufficiently notable in any of those fields for Wikipedia inclusion. As explained on the article's Talk page, he has not been the recipient of any literary prize, shortlisting or other distinction. Critical commentary in independent secondary sources has amounted to just one newspaper review and one literary journal review of one poetry collection (published in 2010). Other coverage has been in web interviews etc, or self-generated. There is a strong suspicion that a major contributor to the article has been the subject himself, or someone closely associated with him. Previous versions of the article have included exaggerated claims (e.g. about his academic qualifications) that other editors have tried to correct, often with the misleading information being reinstated. The suspicion is that the article is being used as a tool of self-aggrandizement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosech (talk • contribs) 00:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete* I see bread and butter translation work (not enough for a Wiki page, but almost nothing in terms of sustained, independent secondary analysis of output (such as reviews in publications entirely independent with their own established editorship). Wiki had already rated this a Low Importance page. Coverage of their work is extremely small and the talk page reports Cosech’s extensive efforts to find it. The points about erroneous edits to qualifications by the proposer check out.
80.95.196.234 (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a clearly self-promotional article about a non-notable translator, poet, and associate professor (not a full professor, not a PhD). Does not rise to prominence or notability in any of those fields. Article creator, through IPs and sockpuppets, has done nothing else on Wikipedia besides this plus an article on the main poet he has translated. Persingo (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To add to the above, this is probably an autobiography, as it was started by an anonymous account tracing to the same time and place that the subject was a student back in 2005 in Tampa. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also worth noting that the author of that initial 2005 article called Pantano "award winning", though I have found no record of Pantano winning any award either before or since. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the article has been a 20 year vanity project by the author himself, and has only escaped scrutiny for so long because he is so little known. Cosech (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Lushchai

Yuri Lushchai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person seems like a wonderful Wikipedian, but I do not see a claim to notability here or case for one as an author. He is unfortunately but one of many war casualties. Projectify as an obit might be an option? Star Mississippi 00:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - if final vote is delete, someone should merge this article, or post an archive link to his user webpage. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://web.archive.org/web/20240413164446/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Lushchai
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:%D0%AE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_%D0%9B.
  • Delete: my saddest vote to date (maybe ever) but nothing to meet WP:42 (yes, he was 42). RIP ♡ .. what a legend! FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Seekda

AfDs for this article:
Seekda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent reliable sources about this niche software company in the article, and I am seeing nothing in a search that is not promotional. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Bin, Xu; Sen, Luo; Sun, Kewu (2012). "Towards Multimodal Query in Web Service Search". 2012 IEEE 19th International Conference on Web Services. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICWS.2012.42. ISBN 978-1-4673-2131-0.

      The article note: "To the best of our knowledge, Seekda is the most comprehensive search engine for Web Service nowadays. However, Seekda only provides keyword search, which makes its search quality far from satisfactory. For example, assume that a developer wants to search a Web service with the function of sending email. If he types “send email” in Seekda, the first matched Web service is a Short Message Service (SMS). If he inputs “email” in Seekda, the first Web service is for email validation."

      The article notes: "Seekda is currently the most comprehensive global search engine for Web services. However, Seekda only offers keyword search which leads to low accuracy. Because keyword search could not capture the users’ search need well."

    2. Fensel, Dieter; Facca, Federico Michele; Simperl, Elena; Toma, Ioan (2011). "Seekda: The Business Point of View". Semantic Web Services. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19193-0_14. ISBN 978-3-642-19192-3.

      The book notes: "The mission of seekda is to ease the search, interoperability and bundling of services and thus achieve a true Web of services. seekda provides a dedicated Web services search engine, featuring monitoring and invocation facilities. ... The crawler developed at seekda detects services over the Web and classifies them in an internal ontology that is maintained by seekda. Discovered services can then be annotated with semantic descriptions. The aim is to detect as many public services as possible. To achieve this goal, the crawler is focused on both WSDLbased and RESTful services. The search is not just restricted to pure technical service descriptions but also encompasses information surrounding the service, for example, HTML documents that talk about the services. This information will help in a two-fold way: to discover the actual service (and to automatically classify it) and to further annotate the service (given that the extra information about the service is available). The semantic information is then used by the front-end search engine that seekda also develops and provides to users (more in Sect. 14.2.2)."

    3. Mirmotalebi, Rozita; Ding, Chen; Chi, Chi-Hung (2012). "Modeling User's Non-functional Preferences for Personalized Service Ranking". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 7636. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34321-6_24. ISBN 978-3-642-34320-9.

      The article notes: "Seekda is a publicly available web service search engine. It contains a good number of web services published online. It also maintains useful information of each service, such as its origin country, the provider information, a link to its WSDL file, tags, its availability, a chart of its response time in the past, a user rating, its level of documentation, etc. For most of the non-functional properties we consider in our system, we could find their values from either Seekda or the original hosting sites, except the provider popularity, the service popularity and the service cost. In the experiment, we excluded them from the similarity calculation. ... There were 7739 providers and 28606 services stored in Seekda (as of August 2, 2011). ... After removing the services with expired URLs, we finally got 1208 services from 537 providers, and each provider contains at least one service. Since Seekda started crawling and monitoring web services from 2006, the oldest service in our dataset was published in 2006."

    4. Li, Deyi; Zhang, Haisu; Liu, Yuchao; Chen, Guishen (2010). "On Foundations of Services Interoperation in Cloud Computing". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: 9. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14553-7_3. ISBN 978-3-642-14552-0.

      The article notes: "Seekda’s Web Services portal provides a search platform for public direct access to web services, which can enable users to find web services based on a catalogue of more than 28,000 service descriptions. Services listed at seekda cover a wide range of functionality in map, weather, sports, shopping and entertainment etc., and can be integrated into more capacious services. At present seekda verifies if a service is up once a day, and reports a measurement of availability by means of the frequency whether the server correctly implements the SOAP protocol daily. "

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Seekda to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not convinced that this set of mentions meets WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 12:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite Cunard's review of sources, this is a company and therefore needs to meet WP:NCORP. References showing notability must adhere to WP:ORGCRIT and nothing I can find does so. Even GNews only has 3 hits and GSearch shows nothing more than the typical press release, blogs, and CrunchBase type references. If the company was worthy of notice, we would see significant press coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant coverage need not come from the press – academic sources are a perfectly legitimate means of establishing notability. – Teratix ₵ 11:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Analysis of the first two sources:
    1. Bin, Sen & Sun 2012's abstract says, "Compared with the alternative system Seekda, it is able to obtain much higher search accuracy with keyword query (with a match rate of 2-4 times higher than that of Seekda). The custom search can achieve 100% top-3 match rate, while Seekda fails in most cases using keywords." That a conference paper for IEEE did research on Seekda strongly contributes to notability. The word "Seekda" is used 20 times in the paper.
    2. Fensel et al. 2011 has a chapter titled "Seekda: The Business Point of View". The chapter's abstract says, "Industry is slowly picking up on the use of semantic technologies within their systems. In this chapter, we describe how these technologies are employed by seekda, a company focused on Web services." That there is an entire chapter about Seekda in a Springer Berlin book strongly establishes notability. Seekda is mentioned 38 times in the chapter.
    It is inaccurate to call these sources merely a "set of mentions". These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage as they provide very detailed coverage about Seekda. These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources because they are functionally independent and intellectually independent. These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience because they are international publications covering this Austrian company. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think by your own analysis of the first source it is a mention. The paper is not about Seekda. "Compared with the alternative system......" indicates it is simply being compared to the main topic of the paper and not about Seekda itself. And the fact the name is used 20 times also has no bearing. Curious if you were able to access the entire paper or just the abstract? --CNMall41 (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have full access to all of the sources I listed here. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria says:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals.

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". Covering "the topic directly and in detail" (which these sources do) is sufficient to meet the notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been helpful to note when first presenting the sources that the discussion of the subject went beyond the content quoted. I am more on the fence with that information. It would also be nice to see some of this added to the article. BD2412 T 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 (talk · contribs), I usually do not note that because the full text is usually available to all editors. The full text is not available to all editors for any of these sources, so I will take that feedback into consideration for these kinds of sources. I am hesitant to rewrite an article at AfD as it would be a time waste if the article was still deleted. I've rewritten the article here, however, in the hope that it demonstrates the subject is notable and moves you off the fence in supporting retention. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Greenish Pickle!: What do you think? BD2412 T 15:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here are two additional sources about the subject:
    1. Simperl, Elena; Cuel, Roberta; Stein, Martin (2013). "Case Study: Building a Community of Practice Around Web Service Management and Annotation". Incentive-Centric Semantic Web Application Engineering. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-79441-4_4. ISBN 978-3-031-79440-7.

      The book notes: "In this scenario, seekda’s mission is to facilitate on-demand use of services over the Web. As a first step seekda is operating a search engine providing access to publicly available Web APIs. Seekda will simplify purchases across different providers and unify the use of services in bundles. Therefore, the emerging seekda portal can be a good candidate for such an independent Web API marketplace aiming to simplify purchases and transactions across different providers and to unify the usage of services regardless of their origin.

      "... Seekda’s products aim at creating a more transparent and accessible Web API market. The company has developed automatic means to identify Web APIs (on the World Wide Web) and has devised algorithms to enable users to find appropriate APIs for a given task efficiently. By pre-filtering the Web content and indexing Web API specific features, seekda manages the largest set of Web APIs known and make comparison easier through a unified presentation.

      "As depicted in 4.1, the seekda marketplace will facilitate the trade of Web API usage in a one-stop-shopping manner—dramatically reducing procurement costs. The current market is mostly based on atomic service offerings, when completely integrated solutions are clearly needed. Seekda will address this demand by facilitating the creation of service bundles. Interoperability issues between different providers will be handled by the marketplace, which allows for a seamless switching between providers and thus reduces integration costs for the customers of seekda."

    2. Petrie, Charles (2009-11-06). "Practical Web Services". IEEE Internet Computing. Vol. 13, no. 6. doi:10.1109/MIC.2009.135.

      The article notes: "To be really useful, an open Web service would be able to be discovered easily by some easy-to-use search engine, perhaps Seekda (http://seekda.com). Now, this is potentially a good tool. Try, for example, searching for “hotel reservation.” You get a list of WSDL services. Click on one and you get the list of operations of the service. Click on one of those, and it asks you to fill in the strings that will compose the message and be sent to the service. This is almost practical. Except you don’t have a clue what you’re being asked to enter. Click, for example, on the “ReservationsService,” which is one of the services returned in the search. Oh, wait, there’s no description yet. Well, just pick the first one in the results list. Its description is “seems to be an internal service.” And if you click on the “Use Now” link, you have no idea what the operations do, individually or together. If you click on one of them, you’re asked to enter strings that correspond to fields that clearly want you to enter some secret codes. Even the previous “ReservationService” has operations with names like “GetRGInfo” with a single message field called “nRGID.” Seekda is possibly the best product of this kind out there. But you see the problem, don’t you?"

    Cunard (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but I still do not agree. You are pointing to GNG for some of your contention and NCORP for others. Under GNG, "There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". Covering "the topic directly and in detail" (which these sources do) is sufficient to meet the notability guideline." However, under NCORP, there IS a requirement. It is spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT and unfortunately I do not see these meeting that criteria. It likely had a great product for a brief period of time but "presumed" notable and actual notable are not the same. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#How to apply the criteria says:

Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability:

  1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
  2. Be completely independent of the article subject.
  3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
  4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.
These sources "addres[s] the subject of the article directly and in depth". The guideline does not say Seekda must be "the main topic of the source material".

Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very family with what the guideline says. I feel your definition of what constitutes WP:CORPDEPTH is not consistent with how others apply it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: You said:
Under GNG, "There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". [...] However, under NCORP, there IS a requirement. It is spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT
I am not seeing anything in ORGCRIT, or NCORP more broadly, that requires a prospective source to cover a company as "the main topic of the source material", as opposed to "directly and in depth". Please point me to the specific text you believe sets this requirement. – Teratix ₵ 11:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bad choice of words on my part. I will admit that as it does not literally say that. I am going off what it says here "Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself)" - I take that (and it has been fairly consistent in NCORP AfD discussions) to mean the company must be the main topic.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But your own quotation specifies an exception if the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself – NCORP, far from requiring something must be "the main topic" of the article in question, explicitly notes the opposite: an article with a different main topic still demonstrates notability if it devotes "significant attention" to the topic under scrutiny. – Teratix ₵ 04:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get new opinions of the rewritten article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The article is very well-written and makes the best possible use of what sources there are. But the only real source is the book in the Bibliography. The sources Cunard provided are not about the company at all; they're just using a Seekda product as an example in studies of computing problems. This would be like having the article on General Motors sourced mostly to the Consumer Reports reviews of the Chevy Bolt. It isn't in-depth coverage of the company, so WP:NCORP is failed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be like having the article on General Motors sourced mostly to the Consumer Reports reviews of the Chevy Bolt. Sure, but in this scenario the reviews would demonstrate the Chevy Bolt is notable, no? Wouldn't this suggest the article needs to be rewritten to be about the Chevy Bolt rather than deleted altogether? – Teratix ₵ 11:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just need to tweak the lead to focus on "Seekda" the search engine service, rather than "Seekda" the company. The sources Cunard provides convincingly demonstrate notability. – Teratix ₵ 11:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is assuming the software is notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's been more than adequately demonstrated by the sources. – Teratix ₵ 04:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GE boxcab

GE boxcab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Filed on behalf of IP 194.223.33.176 per their request. Their reasoning is as follows. This is procedural and I am neutral in this nomination.

"Three sources have failed verification the More Footnotes Needed notice was up since January 2017 and nothing has changed. Even one external link has failed verification. Therefore, all these issues combined make this article fail GNG." The notice "This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations." on that article has been there since January 2017. And nothing has changed for it to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. This article is being taken to AFD due to failure to meeting requrements of a wikipedia article and coupled with that it was originally proposed for deletion, but someone had removed the PROD thinking that they could get away with it. Therefore, AFD is a solution." Star Mississippi 00:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of the article such as:
  • A consortium consisting of ALCO, GE and Ingersoll Rand started series production of the ALCO Boxcabs in 1925. ALCO dropped out of the arrangement in 1928, after acquiring their own diesel engine manufacturer in McIntosh & Seymour and went on to start its own line of diesel switchers. GE and Ingersoll Rand went on with the production of the former ALCO boxcabs, but without ALCO. The locomotives were built in the GE plant in Erie, Pennsylvania, except the unit for Canadian National Railway (CN), which was built by the railroad itself in their workshop. Seventeen examples were built in all.
  • a 60-Ton locomotive with a six-cylinder four-stroke in-line engine of 300 hp
  • a 100-Ton locomotive with two of the same engines as the 60-Ton model)
  • a 120-Ton locomotive with a single six-cylinder 800 hp unit (1 prototype built for Erie Railroad)
Don't have any references connected to them. I would suggest that this article:
  • A. gets deleted.
or
  • B. instead gets draftified for improvements.
194.223.33.176 (talk) 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am voting for delete anyway 194.223.33.176 (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I looked through the wayback machine, specifically http://sbiii.com/boxc1101.html and its self-published meaning the creator of this article has also sourced this article to some dude's self-published website. Look at the bottom of the article and you will see I'm spitting out the truth.
194.223.33.176 (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. but someone had removed the PROD thinking that they could get away with it. I'm that someone, per the edit history and the {{oldprod}} template I left on Talk:GE boxcab. What I said at the time is that poor sourcing and notability are separate issues. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup is only an essay, but a well-regarded one for all that. I'm not a fan of draftifying articles in these cases because it tends to mean fewer eyes on the article. The article needs to be improved, but it's not doing active harm where it is, and no one's alleging that it's grossly inaccurate. IP, just so we're clear, no one, least of all me, disagrees that the sourcing is bad. I just disagree on the remedy. Mackensen (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Generally in agreement with Mackensen. There is coverage of these locomotives in secondary sources, and I've added one such source to the article. I will add coverage from a second source today as well. What I've found does not contradict the existing article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After adding archives and checking some of the passages with failed verification tags, I don't see the issue as one of notability. For example, the line "The only surviving GE boxcab is the 100-ton unit built in December 1929 and delivered to the contractor Foley Brothers in January 1930." is very close to the article which says it's the "only surviving 100-ton (nominal - actually 108-ton) oil-electric boxcab". The other hard facts are all present, so changing that sentence to "The only surviving 100-ton GE boxcab is the unit built in December 1929 and delivered to the contractor Foley Brothers in January 1930." would nudge it in line with the cited source. That's a pretty minor change, and indicates a need for cleanup rather than deletion. Rjjiii (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Has coverage in reliable sources and the article has been improved. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Unsubstantiated deletion request by an IP. The community would be better served by improving articles and searching for sources, rather than submitting deletion requests.--Pechristener (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That only holds true if the subject is notable. In this case, it clearly is. But saying that deletion requests are always bad is patently incorrect. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:44, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_April_20&oldid=1220990734"