Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 22: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Alaska Democratic presidential caucuses}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Devi}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Devi}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Northrup}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Northrup}}

Revision as of 01:27, 22 April 2024

< April 21 April 23 >

Purge server cache

2024 Alaska Democratic presidential caucuses

2024 Alaska Democratic presidential caucuses (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)

Unnotable election that happened by voice vote with only Biden on the ballot. Can be sufficiently covered with one sentence at 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - AFAIK, we keep the primaries & caucuses pages of both major political parties. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But does the sourcing for this voice vote meet WP:GNG? I can't find anything more than passing mentions. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Our practice is that we keep these primaries & caucuses pages, of the major parties. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What policy or guideline is that supported by? AusLondonder (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska - Lack of any opposition candidates/ballot options makes the existence of a standalone page not necessary. Longestview (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. The election and information surrounding it is basically nonexistent so the case for keeping it up is a difficult one to make. DukeOfDelTaco (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable election. There is no reason to remove the article because of the method of voting. There is coverage of this from the LA Times, ABC News, PBS, Whitter Daily News which republished an AP article which describes in detail the procedure of the election in Alaska. Cleary there are enough reliable sources to help the article. Finding this took less than a minute. I don't see how one can say the information about the election in Alaska is nonexistent or the fact there is only one person on the ballot makes it less noteworthy. The articles for Delaware and Flordia primaries were redirected because no vote was held since Biden was the only candidate per state law, but in Alaska an election still happened. This is not a well-researched Afd nomination that was brought forward. The nominator's only reason for nominating is the method of voting that was held and hasn't provided where there were passing mentions. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles you listed seem to be mostly routine coverage. Especially the ABC News article which does little more than list non existent results. This and this are probably the only sources I would argue do better than just passing or routine coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Must Read Alaska is not a reliable source. It has a right-wing bias if you clearly see the way the article and all articles on there are written. So what if they are routine coverage? By that logic, you will need to delete or redirect all primary articles because they have news sources that cover election results. If you read the LA Times and Whitter repost of an AP article, you can see it isn't passing as it goes into detail as to how the caucuses were held. Your argument for passing mentions is not backed by the sources I listed above. There is coverage of the caucuses from reliable sources. When you nominate an article for deletion, you should prove that there isn't enough coverage which you didn't do. Your nomination is malformed and not backed by any evidence as is the case with the redirect votes. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources because all the sources I listed are reliable and prove notability of the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ROUTINE for what I mean by routine coverage. What I meant more that is the level of depthness for those articles is what I would consider the bar to be for sustained, in-depth coverage. Also, I would greatly appreciate if you toned down some of your comments, you're coming off as very hostile. Lets try to keep this disagreement civil. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Onus is on you to prove your claims when you start the nomination. You must provide facts and evidence for your nomination. You haven't provided anything to the contrary from the sources I found which proves notability. This does not violate any routine coverage guideline or policy because there are sources that go in-depth about the caucuses which I have already explained which do. First step should have been to start a discussion on the talk page of the article instead of trying to redirect it and then nominating it for deletion. Xfd is not for expressing what feeling you have about a source. You must prove that sourcing is inadequate enough for the article not to be its own page. As it states on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives: "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." All the links I found was through a quick Google search. And passing mentions along with the in-depth sourcing that does exist is still okay to be enough for the article to be sourced and all the links I found are reliable. Therefore, the article has merit to remain as is. All that needs to be done is to add the information I have provided. Not remove the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm the creator of the article, and I will watch everyone's opinion and do not do anything. Memevietnam98 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with decent coverage and notable election, despite no opposition. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Both Biden and Philips made the ballot, but Philips withdrew his presidential campaign. Maybe add him to the infobox just like Nikki Haley is on the Republican primaries infoboxes despite having also withdrawn her campaign. Daniel (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Philips was not on the ballot, he was removed after he withdrew. It was a voice vote with just Biden on the ballot. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Wikipedia will look biased if they delete this just because there is only one candidate. Even worse, maybe ridiculous, when the one you're eliminating is the sitting President of the United States. An election result is an election result, regardless of how many candidates participated. It's Wikipedia's written record. Wikipedia kept the results of the Republican primary with name recognition and images of their candidates. Likewise, looks biased just as bad if the Democrat results don't get its own page, but is a redirect. Not good, conveniently eliminating the image and returns of Biden. It's in Wikipedia's best interests to keep both. — Maile (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable election and other reasons above. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 06:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus. There's nothing to really say for the uncontested event. It's standard practice not to need separate pages like this and I see no issue of bias; we should be merging a lot more of them even if contested. We are still covering what happened, just not on an unnecessary standalone page. Reywas92Talk 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable article with reliable sources, there is no reason to delete it. Biden was the only one on the ballot doesn't matter, in Wikipedia rules about Wikipedia article just only concentrate about sources and how notable about it.Geotubemedia (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus Some very unconvincing keep arguments above ranging from "Wikipedia will look biased" to simply asserting that "we keep the primaries & caucuses pages of both major political parties". None of these arguments are supported by policy, nor common sense. Sources presented are very much trivial coverage and I see no reason why this cannot be covered as part of the main article. AusLondonder (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus as above. It isn't "because there's only one candidate" but because it wasn't in any sense a real election. This was as much a real election as those in North Korea are. Not only could delegates not vote for anyone else, they couldn't vote uncommitted, abstain, or vote against Biden. At no stage of this process was anyone participating actually allowed to do anything but vote for Biden or delegates who would have to vote for Biden. 76.6.209.95 (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article has a plethora of reliable third-party sources. How is it not notable? The result was covered by news outlets around the country. The reasons offered for deleting this article don't make any sense. For example, why does it matter that Biden was the only one on the ballot? That's just a subjective personal gripe that doesn't relate to the usual standards for deletion. This should obviously be kept. — 4idaho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.252.37.120 (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 29, was originally closed as a BADNAC. I do wish to note explicitly and for the record that consensus is not achieved by counting votes. This is a discussion, and consensus can be found even when participation is roughly equal, if one side's arguments is stronger. However, this needs to be contextualized and rationalized in a closing statement by an administrator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect/Merge Per WP:MERGEREASON, merging doesn't necessarily mean that this caucus isn't notable, just that there isn't enough to say about it to justify its own article. This caucus was essentially a non-event, and the "article" is mostly infoboxes, sidebars, and other template cruft. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 21:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the tables were turned, and it was the other party's nominee who had this caucus result of being the only candidate and not garnering many votes, how would people be reacting? I assume good faith here, but let's be consistent with the candidates. — Maile (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've merged from the other party as well, not all of us care about American politics in a partisan manner. SportingFlyer T·C 03:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge We've been redirecting elections such as these which aren't quite notable enough for their own article - while there's obviously some coverage, there's not much to say and they basically violate WP:NOTNEWS and our event guidelines while being able to be covered adequately elsewhere on the site. SportingFlyer T·C 03:56, 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 no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 03:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Devi

Eva Devi (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 two sources listed here (one being a Who's Who) are not enough to establish the diverse coverage WP:GNG, and a quick search finds little on her. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [1]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [2] [3]. Also there's another sources about the subject [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.43.93.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Removed per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The sources in the article along with this and this should be enough for GNG. At the very least, it's very likely that there is SIGCOV in offline sources. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, there appears to be SIGCOV of her in this and this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Devi probably passes NACTOR as well. She starred in Senyum Nona Anna (coverage here), Papa, Mistery in Hongkong, Pulau Putri, Kenapa Kau Pergi and Jurus Maut. She also starred in Mei Lan, Aku Cinta Padamu, which according to this launched the career of Hendra Cipta. It's likely that these films have SIGCOV in offline sources. It's a shame that that's unverifiable though. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An article about an Indonesian actress and model with unverifiable notability. On English wiki, every statement must be verifiable by at least a reliable source. Here, the films listed weren't sources and won't count to NACTOR. There has no been any recognition or I influence cited by peer for acting in Indonesia films; infact BEFORE have nothing except existence on books which still commutes non notability per SIGCOV. I won't rather vote for now since I am not used or neither speaks Indonesian language (there may be existing but I have clear doubts because the article I saw on ID Wikipedia cited no source.) This is not also a case of System bias, while I can't find maybe two successive citations to her impact in the 1990's or an interview in the 2000's on her role. On the other hand, I will say delete for now. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 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! 22:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. To have the article renamed (there is still no consensus on that), a move discussion needs to be initiated. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 03:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Northrup

Jeffrey Northrup (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 officer has never been notable. There was no coverage of him until his death. All coverage is related to his death and related trial. Biographical sources are essentially obituaries. No reporter is doing any serious investigation into his life before his last day, nor should they, since he was a private person. The trial has had lots of coverage, but we're not a news outlet. While tragic, its not historic. --Rob (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If he's not notable, well, I think his death is. No? What if the article's name is changed to "Death of Jeffrey Northrup"? - EclecticEnnui (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a name change of the article would be most fair. The relevant information could be retained while respecting the private life of officer Northrup. 142.126.191.237 (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds good. Should we wait and see if other users are gonna give their opinion? - EclecticEnnui (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. What was tragic was (a) Northrup's stupidity in getting killed, and (b) the fact that an innocent person had his life ruined for three years while the state tried to prove an unprovable case of first degree murder. This article should be deleted and a new one about this whole case created. --24.80.199.58 (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Crown v Umar Zameer, assuming the case was called that. Connor Behan (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. The story here is not the death of the officer, which is tragic, but the conduct of the Toronto Police Service (including possible collusion to commit perjury to lock away an innocent man), that has prompted an investigation. Coverage has gone far beyond the typical murder case. See [10] [11][12]. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename: The story is about police undercover procedures, police bias, conflicts between police officer testimony and expert testimony, weakness in the prosecution evidence and prosecutor bias. Perhaps the article title should be "Murder trial of Umar Zameer"; there are several Wikipedia articles prefixed by "Murder trial of". TheTrolleyPole (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine if somebody wishes to close this early as keep except for the article body, subject matter, and all of the original content which is the clear consensus above. I withdraw (I don't know how to close it myself). --Rob (talk) 00:02, 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 keep‎. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Aintabli (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography of Indigenous genocide

Historiography of Indigenous genocide (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 sort of an essay, the contents of which is just describing what approximately 10 different sources said about Genocide of Indigenous peoples, there is no real distinct topic here. IMO a merge into that article should be done although the material to merge would be commentary by ~10 sources on Genocide of Indigenous peoples and the sources themselves. North8000 (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'd like to withdraw this nomination. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Park Seung-ri

Park Seung-ri (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per sources at ja:朴昇利 Japanese wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • what do the sources say? GiantSnowman 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: To be honest, the sources seem pretty routine, transfers, contracts and terminations. There was one good source talking about his trial, but it really wasn't that great. I realised I read some of it wrong, I also thought he was playing at a higher level. As he played for quite a few clubs I don't believe a redirect would work. I am going to change my vote to delete. Regards Govvy (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking a more in-depth look. GiantSnowman 17:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect I think its better to either redirect the page to Azul Claro Numazu or delete it since the subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, including WP:BASIC or even WP:1E. Also, the Japanese page lacks sufficient sourcing and quality writing, so i see no reason to maintain it. Lililolol (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per above. Just routine sources. Svartner (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Dae-hwa

Hong Dae-hwa (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Larry Bird

List of career achievements by Larry Bird (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 an indiscriminate list of statistics that is a WP:NOTSTATS violation. Let'srun (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Jong-min

Ho Jong-min (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Han Yong-gi

Han Yong-gi (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ólafsfjarðarvöllur

Ólafsfjarðarvöllur (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)

Likely hoax. Only source is permanent dead link. "Capacity of 2100" is more than twice the town's population. Claims to be the home field of Knattspyrnufélag Fjarðabyggðar, which was in a completely different part of Iceland. Numberguy6 (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Function Health

Function Health (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)

Thrice declined at AfC prior to acceptance. While the search is hard given health functions, a search combined with Hyman's name just brings more publicity and churnalism. I don't see the WP:SIRS depth of sourcing required for WP:CORP. A merger to Mark Hyman (doctor) might be possible as the only co-founder with an article, but not sure that would be DUE. Star Mississippi 00:17, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_April_22&oldid=1220135908"