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/Birwahi}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis Mager}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis Mager}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries and dependencies by area in 1989}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries and dependencies by area in 1989}}

Revision as of 17:52, 22 April 2024

< April 21 April 23 >

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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birwahi

Birwahi (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)

Very small village (popn around 1000) with nothing notable online as far as I can see. Newhaven lad (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Madhya Pradesh. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator's reason is invalid. All populated places are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree population size isn't a valid reason but there doesn't appear to be census data for it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this showing the population, but got a bit lost as to what this actually is. SportingFlyer T·C 02:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That site looks like it's published by the Panna district authorities, but I could find no explicit statement of that. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - refs added (which were not difficult to find); a badly judged nomination. Ingratis (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. — CactusWriter (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Mager

Travis Mager (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)

Absolutely fails WP:NSKATE; an earlier PROD had been removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since it has already been PROD'ed, it is ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with recommendation to delete, fails both general and specific notability rules--TJS808 (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:27, 5 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 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries and dependencies by area in 1989

List of countries and dependencies by area in 1989 (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 article with no independent notability on it's own from the main countries and dependences by area list article. A very arbitrary article that just picks a certain moment in history. The year before the fall of communism and as it states in the first sentence "This is a list of countries by area in 1989, providing an overview of the world population before the fall of the Iron Curtain."

There could be plenty of articles about some period in time when borders and land area of nations changed. Such as the end of European colonization in Africa, Asia, or even earlier when Spain lost it's former territories in Latin America.

Also there is no source for what makes this notable on it's own and we have something based on original research. All the notes and references listed are the same or if not the same can be or are used in the original article.

I think this also falls under No stats as this is some random information at a random point in time. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Weird that population is mentioned only in that lead sentence! —Tamfang (talk) 20:41, 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 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angeline Gustave

Angeline Gustave (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 footballer BLP. I found a couple of pieces covering her move to France (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), but nothing in-depth. #3 is probably the best source. JTtheOG (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rugby League XIII

AfDs for this article:
Rugby League XIII (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)

Page has a single reference which is an error 404, context is minimal, and the article is missing anything the team actually did, fails WP:GNG Mn1548 (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BusterD (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Presbytery, Bible Presbyterian Church

AfDs for this article:
Faith Presbytery, Bible Presbyterian Church (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)

Micro-denomination with perhaps nine churches as of 2014, per a self-published source (citing other self-published sources) that is no longer available online. Citations are exclusively to primary sources, to self-published sources, or to outdated sources of questionable independence and reliability. Participants in the 2022 AfD discussion did not delve deeply into the validity of the sources cited as applied to WP:NORG, which I will do here:

  • [1]. Self-published source citing other self-published sources; not updated since 2014.
  • [2]. Self-published book; does not illuminate notability of subject, just reference one of its views and its existence.
  • [3]. Blog/opinion post; does not meet reliable source criteria for establishing notability.
  • [4]. Dead link with no archived version.
  • [5]. Book published by Redeeming the Time (RTT) Publications, which is the publishing arm of the subject and thus not independent of the subject.
  • [6]. Portuguese-language source; cannot tell if it is self-published. Regardless, it is not significant coverage and merely notes the existence of the subject.
  • [7]. OPC General Assembly minutes and thus disqualified as primary source.
  • [8]. Personal blog; self-published source.
  • [9] Newsletter published by Redeeming the Time (RTT) Publications, which is the publishing arm of the subject and thus not independent of the subject.

I cannot identify any other independent, secondary, reliable sources that verify the notability of this denomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An editor has updated the link in footnote 4 to a live link. It's here -- it appears self-published but has no author listed. It appears impossible to validate its reliability, and moreover it only mentions the subject of the article in a single trivial mention on page 96. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:53, 25 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) 06:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Pretty much fails notability as shown above in the source analysis; primary sources, blogs or un-RS. I don't find anything about this particular outfit. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship

Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship (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 —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve - This is an exchange program through the US State Department. Granted, the article needs work, and needs better sourcing. But this is a very impressive program. It would be a shame to write this off. — Maile (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some valuable links to YouTube info created by the Fellowship program. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently working on whe wording and sourcing. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Do Not Delete - Work in Progress: This was inadvertently and prematurely deleted yesterday for copyright errors. I am currently reworking this article in my personal user space, to avoid misunderstandings over sourcing, etc. This is an important article that needs work. Please have patience, and I'll get the article in better shape. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised to see you say that I "inadvertently and prematurely deleted" copyright content from Wikipedia. There's no such thing as "prematurely" removing copyright content from Wikipedia. We can't host copyright content on Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. And we can't include it in sandboxes or drafts either. — Diannaa (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I just did an edit update of this article. The lead is now more informative about how this program originated, complete with sources. And I've done a sample list of US and foreign universities which act as hosts. — Maile (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just went through and reviewed the edits made by Maile. Not a single source supports notability under WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. All sources are primary sources (e.g. the authorizing legislation), or they are not independent (State Department webpages or the webpages of Humphrey Fellowship sponsoring institutions), or the coverage is trivial (single references to someone in the article being a Humphrey Fellow). The MPR News source fails verification. My BEFORE search turns up nothing else useful for establishing notability. (One potential source is here, but it is published by a Humphrey Fellowship sponsor institution and I don't have access to the actual text to validate whether it is independent.) Failing the unearthing of significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary sources, this doesn't clear the bar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:11, 29 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) 06:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This feels like PROMO for a US gov't program... Sourcing is solely to universities around the world, or the US gov't. I tried a Gscholar search, but anything not published by the US gov't is very hard to find. One mention of funding in a medical study, but I don't see any critical discussion of the program. I'm amazed it's been around for 40 yrs or so and there is no analysis of this fellowship. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This [1] but it's on the ed.gov web domain, I'm not sure if it's independent of the gov't or not. This [2] in a Malaysian journal... Jstor has nothing, using the Wikipedia Library link only brings up the case study listed in my first link. There just doesn't seem to be anything about this. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In reviewing additional feedback, I continue to find the rationales for keep insufficiently policy-based ("this is an impressive program," "the subject is notable enough"), while the sources (both in the article and beyond) simply don't support notability according to policy. The sources added by one of the editors arguing for keep are primary or trivial, and the Youtube links are promotional. I encourage the closer to review the sources! Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom., Dclemens1971, and Oaktree b. Fails WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:59, 14 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. The sole Keep view did not provide any valid argument. But without quorum, this can only be treated as a contested PROD. Feel free to renominate in a month. Owen× ☎ 11:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Siraj Akbar

AfDs for this article:
Malik Siraj Akbar (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 BLP, created by a SPA Jarisful (talk · contribs), appears to have been authored by the subject themselves, as he's an experienced editor. This BLP is very promotional in nature, citing unreliable and even unacceptable sources, such as opinion pieces penned by the subject themselves and such pieces are generally not admissible as references. While the subject has garnered some press coverage, but it's too common for journalists to get some sort of press attention on every one of them. To me, this one doesn't appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:JOURNALIST as well WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP but the article needs to be improved by removing unsourced and primary sources. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But as I said the subject doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or even WP:JOURNALIST so what's the point of cleaning up BLP ? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - subject passes WP:JOURNALIST as he is widely cited and interviewed by International and Pakistani media. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you voting twice? While it's clear he's a journalist and may be frequently cited or even invited on TV talk shows, but having a WP BLP requires meeting WP:GNG criteria. Whether he meets that is unclear to me, so if you think he does, you'll need to provide evidence of coverage right here. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am pinging @Mar4d: as they stood with strong sourcing in first AfD. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it ethical to invite those who previously voted "keep"? It could be considered canvassing. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unethical as they earlier hammered by strong sourcing. You too can invite, it's no wrong man. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources provided by Mar4d weren't particularly robust. Mar4d presented 04 references. Let's assess each of them. The Diplomat and [DW sources consist of interviews but they don't directly discuss the subject. While Al Jazeera only mentions him in passing. Only the BBC story offers some coverage of the subject, but it alone isn't sufficient to establish WP:N because it lacks significant depth.
    And no, I don't feel the need to invite anyone here because I generally try to steer clear of such actions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion needs more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Just wanted to point out that although @Twinkle1990 voted to keep the BLP, they only cited WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:JUSTAPOLICY and didn't provided solid reasons backing their stance. In my last comment above, I've thoroughly evaluated each and every reference cited on the BLP and none of them passes WP:SIRS. I'm mentioning this because sometimes AfDs are closed with no consensus due to lack of participation, leaving the BLP on WP unnecessarily which is a bit frustrating. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 23:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oliyum Oliyum

Oliyum Oliyum (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)

Undersourced. Tagged for notability for over a decade. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:37, 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 Speedy delete per author request. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Challonge

Challonge (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 feels "known but not notable" and fails WP:NCORP. The sources are either non-independent (company website, acquisition announcement) or trivial coverage (examples of tournaments using Challonge). I couldn't find any reviews, or RS writing about comparisons of tournament bracket generators, which we would probably need for an NCORP pass here. ~ A412 talk! 16:32, 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 00:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dou Kalender

Dou Kalender (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 stumbled across this article. It wasn't very big, but I made it even smaller as it is unsourced. Originally, the only source was the band's website, but that no longer exists (I've removed it). It's an orphan. The image is on no other language project, including the Turkish one. Although it was created over 10 years ago, only one person has it on their watchlist. That said, I know nothing about band singers, especially foreign ones and have not done WP:BEFORE. If editors think it should be kept, this AfD will hopefully serve to improve the facial notability of the subject and the quality of the article itself. Fails WP:SINGER. Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Turkey. Kpgjhpjm 16:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I won't spend as much time rewriting my comment, because the WP:XFDVOTE tool did not save my comment. Simply put, I couldn't find reliable independent sources on him. There is possible COI as the creator's sole contribution was this biography for more than a decade. The band could be luckier in terms of notability, but it interestingly lacks an article, and after a quick search, I am unsure if there is sufficient coverage out there. I would, however, support redirecting this to an article about the band if it ever gets created during this discussion. Aintabli (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Davis Jr. (presidential candidate)

John Davis Jr. (presidential candidate) (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)

Very minor candidate who appeared on two primary ballots. Received less than 4000 votes out of nearly 20 million cast. Lacking significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots, he's a minor candidate known only for being a minor candidate. Samoht27 (talk) 19:14, 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 delete‎. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Tasca (professor)

Paolo Tasca (professor) (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 deleted and salted as Paolo Tasca * Pppery * it has begun... 14:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, Computing, Italy, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Delete -- I don't have access to the deleted versions of the article, but since it has been deleted and salted, the level of improvement to notability needs to be higher than typical to keep, and I don't see a WP:PROF pass here that would warrant it. But UCL is a significant university, so I don't want to be too hasty -- salting seems to me to be primarily based on a "wasting the community's time" basis and not on a "this person couldn't possibly be notable" one. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to weak delete by Mikejisuzu's arguments, but nothing warrants speedy keep by a long shot. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that he's actually only an associate professor, not a full professor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep -- Paolo Tasca is much more notable now in 2024, with multiple publications and third-party media references. Right now Tasca has several citations in triple digits. I'd argue that notability itself has increased significantly since the last deletion.
Given the higher requirement for notability, Tasca should have at least one well-cited multiple author work and others in double digits. From a quick look at Google Scholar, he has 6 works in triple-digit citations and more than 20 with double-digit citations. It looks like he has also grown in notability from a media perspective at least regards to reliable sources such as Euronews, and Project Syndicate. [4] As a result, Tasca clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NPROF notability criteria. Mikejisuzu (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever gave you the idea that that is enough citations in the very highly-cited field of computer science? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, for a start the title is a lie, as he's an associate professor, not a professor. Why do people involved with blockchain always seem to lie like this? Exaggeration is a sign of immaturity, not strength. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on notability, encyclopedic relevance, academic publications, positions, and so on - In response to Phil's and Necrothesp's comments: Paolo Tasca's work is multidisciplinary, and he also does a lot of work in economics. Please check Google Scholar for his many dozens of academic publications. This is certainly enough to establish basic notability. (Google Scholar)
He also has an ORCID profile where dozens of published works are listed. (ORCID)
And if that's not enough, there's an official UCL profile as well with additional information. (UCL page) UCL is one of the top universities in the UK and Europe, equivalent to an Ivy League-type institution. We can't just delete UCL, or Yale, professors with many dozens of publications unless we can demonstrate solid reasons for why they absolutely don't fit into the scope of this online encyclopedia. This is definitely a serious academic, not some self-promoting "motivational speaker" or "life coach."
There are plenty of academics out there who used to be non-notable, but have since become much more notable due to their recent extensive publications, research, and presentations. Tasca would certainly be one of them. Simply having a previous deletion or two should not prevent the subject from being permanently barred from eventually having a Wikipedia article even after the subject has eventually attained sufficient notability. I understand that the nominator thinks that Tasca had been deleted before and hence would like to reconsider whether or not the article should remain deleted. Nevertheless, by now, I strongly believe that his notability and encyclopedic relevance has greatly increased, and he is certainly worth including on Wikipedia now. This article is now certainly useful and relevant for encyclopedia readers, which is what Wikipedia is meant for.
I would also really like to see more experienced users vote on this issue, particularly @Cunard: and others.
As for Tasca being an "associate professor"? I'm not sure who created the page and why they decided on "(professor)", but it certainly seems fair enough to me. The article creator didn't try to put "(full professor)." A professor is a professor, whether he or she is an full, associate, assistant, or adjunct professor. Thus, "(professor)" is a fair an accurate description, and I think it's unfair to call out the article creator for inaccurately describing the subject and picking on whether Tasca is a full or associate professor.
I hope that I have laid out a strong case for why Paolo Tasca should be a strong keep and speedy keep. Mikejisuzu (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Associate and assistant professors are types of non-professor, not of professor. "Full professor" is an American term, but the subject has no connection with America. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A professor is a professor, whether he or she is an full, associate, assistant, or adjunct professor. No they're not. In the UK, these people used to be (and in many universities are still) called lecturers, senior lecturers and readers, not professors. An associate or assistant professor who called themselves or insisted on being addressed as "professor" would still be looked on askance, because they have no right to that title. The use of "professor" as a synonym for "academic" is an Americanism, pure and simple. Elsewhere, the unqualified "professor" only refers to someone who holds a chair. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that salting seems to me to be primarily based on a "wasting the community's time" basis and not on a "this person couldn't possibly be notable" one; this certainly looks like someone who could become notable under WP:NPROF. But I agree that citations are not high, given his discipline. Note also that our article contains false claims; he is not the author of The FinTech Book or Banking Beyond Banks and Money. Both books are edited collections. (He is not one of the editors of the former, either.) -- asilvering (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The citation profile doesn't stand out (any way you slice his career, it's in high-citation-rate areas), and no other grounds for notability are available. Overriding the decision to salt a page would require a much stronger case than can be made here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 21

IC 21 (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 galaxy has only been featured in databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT C messier (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: at that distance I suspect it's probably not going to get a serious study unless it is unusual in some way, and sure enough there are no significant studies on the object, although there are a few web sites. Being an active Seyfert 2 galaxy isn't enough to make it notable. I don't see a list page where it could be redirected. Praemonitus (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The IC is a supplement of the New General Catalogue, and is therefore of similar historical importance. Ships & Space(Edits) 20:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't enough to establish notability. Not all NGC objects are notable, let alone IC objects. C messier (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no references suggesting this galaxy is anything more than another catalog object in the sky. Not notable, per Wikipedia:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#Establishing_notability. I see the author has created a whole bunch of also non-notable articles: I'll request a mass delete for them. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:42, 8 May 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) 15:46, 29 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) 16:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any sources on google. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 16:16, 9 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. The issues raised in the debate (promo and such) can be addressed by careful editing. Randykitty (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoran Kalabić

Zoran Kalabić (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 written in a blattantly promo way WP:PROMO. While there are some resources, there is a problem of WP:SNG, since most available resources are very promo-like, and there is no secondary and reliable coverage. After an online research, most available resources lack of independency and are written in a blatant way to promote this person, and most of these resources in a similar way are presented in his website: https://zorankalabic.com/biography/. It should be noted that there is a weird editing history, since the main editor created almost entirely a few months ago both the English and Serbian Wikipedia articles of this person, having a very minimal presence in editing other articles of Serbian people. Lately, the templates with notability issues were removed without any valid explanation, and the photos that are blatantly promo and were initially removed, were restored. Apart from notability issues with lack of reliable and independent resources, there may be a strong problem of WP:COI. Chiserc (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is quite strange request here. Article is not promo, as there is nothing in it to make it like that. Subject is notable and i already explained that i have seen this person on television receiving highest medal of Republic of Serbia after some large donation to the hospital, and wanted to create article as it was incredible for me the person of such importance does not have article on Wikipedia. Some parts of the article were edited and fixed by other editors that actually wanted to contribute instead of this user who only insisted to tag the article and inform others to delete it, without actually working on article. That is normal way of working on article. Notability is without questions no problem at all, many sources are top level independent news agencies of the world so nominator also misrepresented sources quality. Photos were not deleted because they were promo, that is another blatant lie by nominator but because it took some time to confirm original ownership of them by website where i found them. When that was done they were restored as in many other articles. In the end article history shows only good proper editors who are actually trying to make article of this notable person better, and nominations without any proper Wikipedia work which fails good faith guideline, making false accusations about original author of the article. Also, templates with notability issues are not intended to indefinitely tag the articles, but to make explanation that further work is needed. Bit if none is actually trying to fix the article and tags are standing there for weeks without any further comment on talk page or edit, wiki guidelines allow them to be removed. You are not allowed just to restore them and never to point in detail what do you find problematic with this article. I feel that I should protect the article I wanted to create but not because I have COI, i dont, but because this person received highest awards by several countries and donated to many causes, which make it more then valuable and notable addition to Wiki. It baffles me is there anything else behind this request as most of the things article is nominated for are actually misrepresented, also having in mind nominator agenda to delete it for quite some time. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no significant coverage from reliable sources Good day—RetroCosmos talk 19:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:RetroCosmos, Most important national public news services of European countries are very much reliable sources. Talking like Radio television of Serbia for example, there isn't anything more important and reliable than that. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Sources that appear to be should not be acceptable for the purposes of establishing notability Good day—RetroCosmos talk 21:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Initial reaction is Delete. Article is a gushing account of this subject. Definitely MOS:PEACOCK. In conjunction with the simultaneous creation of English and Serbian articles, and a block of photos going up on Commons (lifted straight off subject's own website, with release emailed to VRT by the subject - WP:COI much?), this has the feeling of a PR job. Also the fact that the Wikidata Description was "one of the most successful Serbian businessmen in the diaspora" instead of a more appropriate "Serbian businessman". HOWEVER, this is only a Weak Delete. There might be a case to keep given that there appears to be a legit and (minorly) notable award in the Order of Karađorđe's Star. I'm mindful of WP:Globalise - I would not expect a lot of coverage in English language media and a lack of a profile in the BBC or NYT does not imply a lack of notability! Coverage in Serbian or German would also be acceptable. In that case though, this article needs an end-to-end rewrite to encyclopaedic style (WP:MOS). About 30% of it needs to go, and the rest needs to be backed up by independent cites, not the subject's personal website.Hemmers (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hemmers is there a way to ask you to change your mind to week keep? I will be more then willing to follow your guidelines and to make article better, but he is really notable in more than a few countries following his donations and support. I find out about him over news following his donation of equipment to children's hospital, and it was incredible to me that such a person does not have Wikipedia article. There isn't anything of those things you mentioned. I was the one who took the photos from website because I found them there, and wanted to make article better as other articles look better with images. There are many important news services publishing about him, including central national ones like Radio Television of Serbia. Would be more then interested in fixing the article, even if it would be smaller, but i cannot understand why would we delete notable subject just because some of the content is not ok. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. wikidata description was the first sentence of the article, but that was deleted after other users explained it to me that we cannot use "big words" in articles. I didnt know that, and that's why it was like that. Please assume good faith, i didn't mean anything bad, and its not promotion, i just wanted to create nice article for someone who created many good things for many countries. That is my only motivation. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The difficulty is that I have searched for sources using google.at, google.rs and google.sr in an attempt to find additional coverage. Each search (for both Zoran Kalabić and Зоран Калабић) returns very few results, at the top of which are these wikipedia articles and the subject's personal website and social media.
    Whilst he does have the Order, this is not itself enough to establish notability. There are lots of people who do a great deal of philanthropic work, appear in local media and even get an MBE (in the UK). But they don't all get an article. WP requires sustained and substantial coverage which I am struggling to see.
    I am open to the idea that there is coverage which has not been indexed by google (because their coverage of non-English material is often flaky, particularly for Cyrillic and other non-Latin scripts), and that is why I am wary of deleting articles for subjects covered by those languages simply because Google does not trivially surface a load of English-language sources. There are undoubtedly many notable Serbs, Kenyans, Indonesians and Malay who are omitted from Wikipedia because native-English speakers are notoriously bad at foreign languages.
    Nonetheless, you need to bring those sources to bear, because I am increasingly unsure that they exist. A mention in RTS is not notable (everyone who receives an MBE is listed in The Times, but that does not automatically earn them an article). Likewise several of the sources are basically press releases or interviews - not substantial independent coverage.Hemmers (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there are many more sources in Serbian I didn't included in the article, but I will list you here and add an article more if that will help, now I understand it will. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand why this article is nominated for deletion. It is quite relevant; this person is a well-known public figure. The article has reliable sources, and it is generally well written; there is no need to delete it. If someone is missing something, they can add or edit it.Bandzimir (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it is generally well written "generally" is doing quite a bit of heavy lifting there Good day—RetroCosmos talk 14:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tend to agree with Hemmers that the only minor and possible aspect that may imply some notability is the Order of Karađorđe's Star. However, I have checked that these state awards and orders have been given by President of Serbia to many people, and, only during the last very few years, hundreds of institutions and people have taken this or even a higher state order - check the website: https://www.predsednik.rs/predsednik/ukazi-o-odlikovanjima. For this reason, while this award can indeed establish some notability, I see that this one fact cannot validate the notability of WP:ANYBIO for a well-known and significant award or honor, especially if the article continues to be a WP:SOAPBOX. Chiserc (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but this is again very misleading I don't understand why are you doing this. The list you sent is a general list of all state awards that have been given by president, every single metal and awarded that was given throughout the years. That does not imply that quantity diminished quality, as it is one more lie in this nomination. Only 10 was given for entire year for entire country. So this award recived by this person is by far something important as it is for other countries. Please stop with this anti propaganda. Article is NOT the soap, and you have never pointed anything that is wrong with the article but you just keep repeating and tagging it without any proper explanation this is actually disruptive editing. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article should stay since there is sufficient evidence that he is a public figure, but it should be reduced to appropriate size. For example, two photos from ERA events are absolutely not needed. One is more than enough. Parts of some sentences like "and is currently preparing for a doctorate" (Why is this relevant?) and "After a series of successful business years" (What's the evidence?) really make this article look like a PR project. Whoever wrote this should take care of it. But I still think that article should not be deleted. Tresnjevo (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your productive comments, i will fix and delete all of those great guidelines you pointed out. This means a lot to me to understand editing style, thank you. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I believe this meets WP:ANYBIO#1, for Order of Karađorđe's Star. I don't agree that this one fact cannot validate the notability of WP:ANYBIO for a well-known and significant award or honor, especially if the article continues to be a WP:SOAPBOX; notability is a property of the subject, not the article. Furthermore, I agree with Pane.Vino.Wiki that this has been a disruptive, not a collaborative process. No one should be saying things like if the main author does not fix these issues, I will aggressively delete the offending texts. -- asilvering (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The community has been clear that the number of caps is not a replacement for the GNG or a SNG. Because of this, I gave nearly no weight to arguments about the number of matches the subject has been in. I also did not give weight to the IP's comment that this fell into the realm of PROMO. AfD is not a replacement for cleanup. With both of those in mind, I see a weak consensus to delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shazza McKenzie

AfDs for this article:
Shazza McKenzie (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)

Declined speedy under G4 again, requiring a third AfD nomination. The second AfD fell foul of this and FWIW it was deleted anyway. And nothing has changed. This fails WP:GNG. The coverage remains trivial and doesn't establish notability. It relies too heavily on Cage Match results which - while reliable - do not establish notability. More sources are needed as before and it appears they don't exist even after I tagged this article in early 2022. As this is the third (possible) deletion I would recommend salting if it does go the same way although sending it into draft mode I would agree to. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Wrestling, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - I have now added several reliable secondary sources to the article, some that are generally reliable (Sydney Morning Herald) and some that are considered industry-specific reliable by Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources (such as Wrestling Observer Newsletter), that help confirm the notability of the subject. CeltBrowne (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sydney Morning Herald is fine, but I don't see any other sourcing. What's used in the article is match results and I can't find anything that's in a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even that source was a decade ago, if they're been no media coverage in the years since, I don't think we have notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Included in the article are a number of recent sources, one being Sports Illustrated, discussing her move from Australia to the United States in March 2023. There are also a number of recently articles such as Hercanberra, Fightful and the now added Pro Wrestling Illustrated, Slam! Wrestling and Sirensports which focus on her specifically.

    Please keep in mind that sources such as Wrestling Observer Newsletter, POST Wrestling, Slam! Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Illustrated and Fightful are considered reliable industry specific secondary sources by Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources and should be included as part of any count of recent sources. For the specific purposes of an article on professional wrestling, these sources are to be treated the same as, say, a newspaper. CeltBrowne (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't consider them extensive coverage. The Sports Illustrated article is mostly her talking about her move to the US and losing money for half of the article, not the greatest either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Analysing sources:Source one [5] doesn't appear to be reliable. The second [6] seems also the same but I am considering the writer who may be an expert. Source three [7] is still unreliable. Source 4 [8] from a reliable source The Sydney Morning Herald was a quite looking like PR post following the underneath writing mentioning her next show. Source five [9] is just a profile and doesn't count up secondary sources. Source six [10] was a quote-like discussion of two other wrestlers which may mention "Shazam". Sources [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] are all "external links". I don need to stress myself on that. [22] is statistics of Sara Del Rey, though still not from a reliable source. Others seems same and no need to say it lacks verifiability! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The second source, Slam! Wrestling, is a reliable source per Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources.
    Cagematch.net is considered reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources for match results, which is what it's being used for.
    You don't mention reliable secondary sources such as Sports Illustrated, Pro Wrestling Illustrated, POST Wrestling, Fightful, and Wrestling Observer Newsletter in your analysis. All those publications are considered the highest tier of reliability on Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources.
    I've now added an hour long interview from Talk is Jericho to the article as well as other articles from Fightful. I hope other editors are noting that someone is making good faith efforts to fix the article on short notice. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are failing to acknowledge the fact the WP:GNG usurps WP:RS when the mentions are trivial or otherwise against the rules - as the Canberra and Sydney Morning Herald links are per prohibition of promotional links for example. These were both addressed in the previous AfD. Safari Scribe's comments are absolutely on point. Match results are not enough to establish notability - reliable source or not and the others are trivial mentions only. Podcasts can be temperamental as such for the record. Extensive coverage is needed and it's still not there. Again - just because a source is reliable doesn't mean the GNG guideline is passed. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CeltBrowne, Sources are measured by it's content and not because it's a reliable source. At some I stances, we've reliable sources publishing unreliable materials. Look at each's content pls. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She has few appearances on NXT,[23][24] Impact/TNA,[25] AEW All Out 2019 (pre-show),[26] and ROH.[27] As a freelancer and indie wrestler, I think her name is recognized in pro wrestling sources; plus considering wrestling for several promotions,[28] her championships and titles,[29] and PWI rankings.[30] --Mann Mann (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mann Mann, that doesn't cover appearing in SIGCOV. WP:NEXISTS can be in the future in this case. Could there be option for draftifying? Because I can see that smelling! — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You may not be familiar with Pro Wrestling Illustrated or it's Top 500/Top 250 but within WikiProject Professional Wrestling, PWI is considered A) a reliable, secondary source and B) Their Top 500/Top 250 lists are actually considered a very potent source for judging notability. PWI takes its modern Top 250 women list extremely seriously (PWI's annual Top 500 and Top 250 issues are always their best selling issues of the year; their entire business model revolves around it). These lists cover professional wrestlers the entire world over (not just the United States). The higher the listing, the more notable the subject is.
      As Mann Mann linked to, in 2023 (the current most recent edition) PWI listed McKenzie as number 88 on their Top 250. This placement would mean they are classifying her as the 88th most prominent woman in professional wrestling, beating out hundreds of other candidates from across the US, Japan, Mexico, UK, EU, and other wrestling hotbeds.
      Please note, the PWI 500 is not simply a throwaway "list"; it is an entire issue of PWI and most of the those listed will receive at least a blurb explaining who they are and why they have been positioned on the list. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pro Wrestling Illustrated's top list does not provide significant coverage for anyone outside the top ten or even just the number 1 - and even then it's debatable. Your comment is laced with original research and again presumes that WP:RS is enough for notability. It is not. There must be significant coverage or the source fails the WP:GNG test and is therefore not notable. How many times does this need to be said for you to understand this? Addicted4517 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Per WP:SIGCOV
        • Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
          McKenzie does not have to be the main topic of the Top 250 list in order for this to count towards SIGCOV, particular as the list in-of-itself is a reference point who is notable within professional wrestling (particularly as other reliable secondary sources give extensive coverage to who makes the Top 500 and Top 250). This in the same sense that no one song is the main topic of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, but their inclusion in a list from a reliable secondary source is significant.
          Also while the PWI blurbs can be short, they are not "trivial mentions" in the sense that is outlined in WP:SIGCOV (The Clinton/Three Blind Mice example). The blurbs directly discuss their subjects and outline what they are achieving at the time. Each blurb is directly discussing their subject (as opposed to the Three Blind Mice example in which they are decidedly not the subject of an article about Bill Clinton).
          Pro Wrestling Illustrated's top list does not provide significant coverage for anyone outside the top ten or even just the number 1 - and even then it's debatable
          The 2023 edition of the PWI Top 250 makes clear[31] that PWI has a strict criteria for deciding who is and is not eligible for their list. An entire committee legitimately debates who should be included and where. Each entry on each wrestler outlines what they have achieved in the year and gives an outline of who they are. These are decidedly not the "trivial mentions" outlined in WP:SIGCOV. They are short but succinct explanations of why that person is significant within professional wrestling for that year.

          This is all besides the fact that in addition to her Top 250 ranking, PWI also gave dedicated coverage to McKenzie in this [32] article, which is included in her Wikipedia article and should be noted towards WP:SIGCOV as well as the other dedicated articles/interviews such as Slam![33], Fightful, Siren Sports, and Talk is Jericho.
          Is it the case that this article would be improved by more examples of dedicated coverage of the subject? Yes
          Is it the case that this article has little or no instances of dedicated coverage? No. It does have several instances of dedicated coverage by reliable secondary sources.

          I've also now added both a 2017 interview conducted by Bryan Alvarez of Wrestling Observer Newsletter to the article as well as a 2019 interview conducted by Mike Sempervive also of Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Alvarez is notable, the platform is notable and the interviews are significant coverage. CeltBrowne (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I indented your comment properly. Please indent this way in the future as it avoids confusion. Aside from that everything that you said there again seeks to push a reliable source above the GNG and SIGCOV tests. Short - by definition - is trivial. The comparison between a list of wrestlers and a list of songs is completely irrelevant. Dedicated coverage does not equal significant coverage, because dedicated and still be shirt and therefore trivial. The Sempervive interview is on You Tube and I will remove that. You Tube should never be used in a BLP - ever. The Slam wrestling article is in direct violation of WP:SELFPUB (the subject write it herself). Bottom line - a list is not appropriate by itself to prove notability. It may add to it but it can not be relied upon. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            You Tube should never be used in a BLP - ever.
            Please show me a guideline which states this. WP:Youtube and Wikipedia:Video links make clear that Youtube as a platform is not a problem in-of-itself; Youtube videos may be cited as long as they're from a verifiable, reliable, secondary source. Inauguration of Donald Trump, for example, cites several youtube videos attributed to reliable secondary sources such as PBS and CNN. Belle Delphine, a good-rated BLP article, has an entire subsection in its references dedicated to youtube citations.
            The Slam wrestling article is in direct violation of WP:SELFPUB (the subject write it herself). .
            It's not SelfPub. Selfpub is when John Smith writes something for JohnSmith.blog, a website Smith control and runs themself. Slam! Wrestling is an Independent reliable secondary source per Wikipedia:PW/RS which McKenzie was asked to write a guest feature for. It's a primary source which can be used to make WP:ABOUTSELF statements, which is what it was used for.
            a list is not appropriate by itself to prove notability
            No one is arguing it is on it's own. It's to be taken together with all the other sources being provided, obviously. CeltBrowne (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • The correct citation criteria I am applying (to answer your struck out request) is WP:NPA via WP:BLP. It openly discourages Youtube videos in combination with WP:YOUTUBE unless certain criteria is fulfilled. The citation you gave doesn't do it. The comparison to the Trump inauguration is irrelevant because that isn't a BLP. Anyway - you have the other source so there's no need for this second one anyway. The article on Slam is selfpub because the subject wrote it. That's the only criteria required to breach that guideline. The platform is not relevant. And finally you are arguing the list to prove notability - because you pressed substantive coverage in it.
This has been done to death now and I suggest we wait for others to come in, now that it has been relisted again - and either agree with me or agree with you. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will take discussion of this specific citation-issue to Talk:Shazza McKenzie because it's detracting from the purpose of this thread. But it is in fact important whether or not it is included in the article because it's an example of significant coverage, which is obvious important to a deletion discussion thread. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I'm new here and this should be deleted because it's an ad! What she's done etc etc. Is this allowed? If it is I'm sorry - I didn't know Wikipedia allowed ads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.145.225.106 (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're new and you should use four tildes to sign your posts. No - WP:PROMO prohibits advertising. It's an interesting observation the lack of content on her career aside from match result does in fact appear promotional. but I'll be neutral on this pending other input. Also I assume this is a Delete vote. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never heard of a tilde. Had to look it up and I can't find it on my keyboard. Yes this is a delete vote and thanks for helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.145.225.106 (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tilde is in the capitalised position to the left of the 1 key. I've added Delete to your first comment in this edit to help you. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found it! Cool! Thanks! 1.145.225.106 (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please weigh in on the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for India & Global Business

Centre for India & Global Business (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)

nn. No independent sources - Altenmann >talk 15:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 14:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Beaverton, Oregon#Shopping. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Ridge Town Square

Progress Ridge Town Square (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. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. A "lifestyle center"/ small mall with 30 stores. Of the two references, one is a database type listing and the other is about a nearby trail and does not even mention it. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:08, 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Battle of Lahore (1759)

First Battle of Lahore (1759) (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 sources provided on the page show no mention for a battle in "August 1759", the sources only show that Ahmad Shah even began his campaign in September 1759, reaching Lahore and then taking it in November. [34] Noorullah (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "Sabaji maintained his position with great valour and strength, inflicted a crushing defeat upon Jahan Khan, who was severely wounded and lost his son in the action. Jahan Khan’s return to Peshawar in discomfiture so roused the fury of the Shah." Excerpts from New history of the Marathas vol 1. p-408
  2. "Dattaji Sindhia progressed slowly through Malwa. He appointed Sabaji Sindhia to occupy Lahore ( March, 1759 ). The Sikhs did not check the Marathas, but co-operated with them in driving away the Afghans under Jahan Khan across the Indus. Sabaji’s forces penetrated as far as Peshawar." Excerpts from A Study Of Eighteenth Century India Vol. 1. p-342
  • Additional comments- Renaming the article to the Capture of Lahore or even the Maratha occupation of Lahore (per sources) would be better. Though these sources are enough for keeping this article still additional sources would be appreciated.
Sudsahab (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't even seem to be a battle at all.
Per Sarkar, it states that the Afghans had evacuated Lahore, meaning that there was no "battle" for the city in April 1758. [35] Also corroborated by Hari Ram Gupta: [36]
The Afghans returned in October 1759 and re-occupied Lahore. [37]
There's no mention of a battle in August 1759 whatsoever.
Jahan Khan's battle per this source: [38] Doesn't seem to be mentioned at Lahore at all, nor do the sources you've shown imply this, but rather is "Thereafter the invaders overran Attock, then crossed the Indus, and threatened the historic fort of Rohtas on the left bank of the Jhelum. By that time, Sabaji Patel (Schinde) reached the place with fresh troops and a large number of Sikh fighters, who had made common cause with him against the Afghan infiltrators. The Afghans were defeated by the combined forces of the Marathas and the Sikhs in a pitched battle, in which Jahan Khan lost his son and was himself also wounded."
So again, this shows this was not a battle at Lahore. Noorullah (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[39] Does not show a battle at Lahore, but mentions Jahan Khan's defeat at an undisclosed location, and only later talks about how Ahmad Shah re-occupied Lahore (presumably in his 1759 October campaign). Noorullah (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I proposed renaming this article, either it should be Jahan Khan invasion of Rohtas or Battle of Rohtas. Coming to Sarkar's reliability which is questionable. Also see WP:RAJ, we can't rely on him as long as we have better sources for the notability of the Battle of Lahore (Battle of Rohtas?).
You do realise [this|https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.98175/page/n361/mode/2up] work of Hari Ram Gupta (published in 1944) is relatively older than his cited work in the article Marathas and Panipat. (published in 1961)? It would be obvious that older sources might not contain more information around this certain event, this is WP:AGE MATTERS.
  • In Marathas and Panipat. p-101 tells us: Jahan Khan rushed to Peshawar, captured Attock, and then advanced towards Rohtas. Sabaji sought help from the Sikhs. The united forces marched against Jahan Khan, whom they encountered on the other side of the Jehlam. In a fierce engagement the Afghan general suffered heavily. He lost his son and a large number of troops, himself receiving several wounds
  • [40] p-260, It also propounds: Thereafter, the invaders overran Attock, then crossed the Indus and threatened the historic fort of Rohtas on the left bank of the Jhelum. By that time, Sabaji Patel reached the place with fresh troops and a large number of the Sikh fighters, who had made a common cause with him against the Afghan infiltrators. The Afghans were defeated by the combined forces of the Marathas and the Sikhs in a pitched battle, in which Jahan Khan lost his son and was himself also wounded. Note Rohtas,Pitched battle and fierce engagement in both of the quotations.
Sudsahab (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why have a separate article for this at all? It doesn't seem that the sources are discussing it in that way. They're describing it as part of an overall campaign. That tells me the best place for this information is somewhere like Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, or whichever other article might fit better. -- asilvering (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already quoted the sources which discussed it thoroughly. And no it's not part of Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, not to be confused with Capture of Lahore which occurred in 1758 by Raghunath Rao. If merging is an option then I'd suggest merging it to Afghan-Maratha War. But my vote is still keep until someone gives more inputs. Sudsahab (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sudsahab, if it isn't part of Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, you should fix the infobox, since that's what it says. -- asilvering (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Sudsahab (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:HEY and to allow further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll just add that the "WP:HEY" was Sudsahab referring to their own edits to the article (seems a bit rich to say this about yourself?), and they have since been blocked as a sockpuppet. So no one is actually arguing this meets the WP:HEY standard. -- asilvering (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    lol. Noorullah (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pala Tibetan War

Pala Tibetan War (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)
  • To begin with, there are no reliable sources that mention a war between the Pala dynasty of Bengal and the Tibetans. Neither has any historian referred to it as the "Pala Tibetan War" nor have they mentioned such a conflict in any way.
  • The background section of the article fails to address the relationship between the Palas and Tibetans. Additionally, the WP:SYNTH has been consistently disregarded throughout the entire article, including the background section. Moreover, sources have been presented suggesting the submission of the Pala ruler to the Tibetans, but there is also a source provided that contradicts this claim.
  • The section "Dharmapala's Conflict with Tibetans" doesn't actually discuss the conflict between the Palas and Tibetans; rather, it focuses on Dharmapala's victory against the Nepalese forces. This marks the first instance of major synthesis of sources in the article. The background section deliberately states that Nepal was under Tibetan suzerainty. Therefore, the editor synthesized that the conflict between Nepal and the Palas was distorted into the "Pala Tibetan War," which is nonsensical as it combines two distinct contexts. For instance, if one source states that "X is a vassal of Y," and another source mentions that an entity called "Z successfully campaigns against X", an original research is conducted, leading to the conclusion that "Z defeated Y", despite Y's lack of involvement.
  • The pattern continues in the section "Devapala's Conflict with Tibetans," where synthesis of sources occurs, often with poorly sourced content, including reliance on primary records. Similar to Dharmapala, Devapala is depicted as engaging in a war with the Nepalese, which is then distorted into a conflict with the Tibetans. The article contains sparse and scattered information, especially if we disregard the synthesis part, where the context is barely mentioned in the sources and consists of scattered lines, primarily based on Pala dynasty's primary records. Moreover, none of the Tibetan or Chinese records mention any conflict between the Tibetans and the Pala dynasty. Fails WP:GNG, and the article is completely built on WP:OR, including the title. Imperial[AFCND] 07:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Imperial[AFCND] 07:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Imperial[AFCND] 07:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have misunderstood the article. There are reliable and contemporary sources that point to a conflict between the Palas and Tibetans. Tibetan records specifically mention a war with the Pala Empire. The Pala records also mention conflicts with Tibetans. Furthermore, Dharmapāla's contemporaneous records indicate that he seized the throne of Nepal from the Tibetan Empire. Even the Nepali tradition states that Dharmapāla had subjugated Nepal. The conflict between Dharmapāla and Tibetans is supported by Devapāla's inscriptions.
  • The same sources mention the submission of Palas and exaggeration of Tibetans. The sources cited, which state that the Pala Empire was subjugated by the Tibetans, tells that Tibetan claims are exaggerated as they lack proof, so there is no contradiction with WP:SYNTH.
  • Still, it is incongruent with the Tibetans as the Palas conquered Nepal from the Tibetan Empire. However, if this is the sole flaw in the article, it can be resolved by altering the title to 'Pala-Nepalese conflict'. Thus, I request that instead of discarding the article, the title be changed to 'Pala-Nepalese war'.
Based Kashmiri (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend reading WP:SYNTH. "Contradiction with WP:SYNTH"? Coming to first point, none of the sources cited here, directs to a Tibetan source, and even lacks scattered lines in 21st century, from both sides. Seizing the throne from Nepal neither mentioned in the article. However, even if it is present in WP:RS, that gives noone the right display that as "Pala Tibetan War". The second point doesn't make any sense to me. The third point actually points out how the article entirely fails. It cannot be changed as "Pala–Nepalese War", as the attempt to show Tibetians as belligerents have failed here. I am sorry, but WP:MILHIST articles doesn't suit for you as two of such articles created by you, this and Draft:Pala invasion of Sindh, both are miserably made upon original research. Now, the suggestion to move it to "Pala–Nepalese War", I would oppose it because it too fails WP:GNG, with some scattered lines mentioned in some sources. As it is already covered in the article of Dharmapala and Devapala, there is no need for a seperate article. Imperial[AFCND] 09:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed some issues in the article, but I still request for the article to be moved into the draft space instead of deleting it. Allow time and space for its improvement until it is ready for main space. Based Kashmiri (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems like what the article is saying is:
  1. Dharampala of Pala dynasty may have conquered Nepal.
  2. But Nepal was likely under Tibet's control around that time.
  3. So, there must have been a war that won the Palas Nepal from the Tibetans.

I am seeing too many ifs, buts and maybes. But is that what the article is saying? If so, exactly which of those premises are we reasonably sure of? Does the conclusion follow? And isn't the conclusion too weak anyway to present at "Pala-Tibet war" as though it were fact? Looks to me like the author is conjecturing the existence of a war based on circumstantial evidence. That's no way to write a Wikipedia article. There are other ways to gain territory. If you have a big enough force, you may walk in unopposed. The previous occupying force may have withdrawn before the next conquerors got there. There may have been dialogue and treaty to cede control in exchange of something else. Assuming, Nepal was even under Tibetan control, and assuming Nepal was even conquered by the Palas. Please tell me we are basing our article on better evidence than that, ideally providing freely accessible sources to support your argument. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author in the above comment says that The Palas conquered Nepal from the Tibetan Empire. However, none of the cited sources support this claim. Some sources suggest that Nepal was under the suzerainty of Tibet, while others indicate that Nepal was conquered by the Palas. Therefore, the author fabricated a narrative by the synthesis of these sources and invented a non-existent conflict known as the "Pala Tibetan War." Imperial[AFCND] 01:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The author in the above comment says that The Palas conquered Nepal from the Tibetan Empire. However, none of the cited sources support this claim." ??
  • The statement that Nepal was not under Tibetan rule is not supported by any sources cited. Specifically, the fifth, sixth, seventh, and ninth sources cited suggest that Nepal was indeed under Tibetan control and was subsequently conquered by the Pala Empire. Additionally, there are no sources indicating that Nepal was not under Tibetan rule when palas conquered them.
  • The Pala Empire fought not only in Nepal and the Himalayas, but also in Kedara, Gokarna, and Northern Bengal [Mentioned in the article with Reliable Sources]. This is enough to showcase the Pala Tibetan Wars or the Pala Tibetan Conflicts.
Based Kashmiri (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, combining two sources to make a conclusion, thats what you did, and we call it WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed here. Imperial[AFCND] 18:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess you don't know what WP:SYNTH is, do you? The article does not solely focus on the conquest of Nepal by the Palas against the Tibetans. It also covers the conflicts and clashes between the Pala Empire and the Tibetan Empire in Nepal, the Himalayas, Kedara, Gokarna, and Northern Bengal. The previous sentence was a bit blunt, but you seems to be focused on only Nepal ignoring everything else in the article
It would be better to provide a more inclusive perspective on the topic and be more open to different points of view. Good luck trying to find a logical and valid reason to remove the article, Thanks. Based Kashmiri (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, you stated that the article was solely focused on Palas conquering Nepal, and you claimed that no source mentioned that Nepal was part of the Tibetan Empire, however, every source discussing that topic indicates that Nepal was indeed under the control of the Tibetans.
  • The fact that you have only been focusing on Nepal is evident, as you stated that the article was solely concerned with the conquests of that particular territory. However, considering that the article also covers their battles in the Himalayas, Kedara, Gokarna, and Northern Bengal and their overall conflict with the Tibetans, it's enough for the title to be "Pala Tibetan Wars" or "Pala Tibetan Conflicts."
  • You have also wrongfully accused the article of violating Wikipedia's policy on synthesis content, which it does not. I'm inclined to believe that you either do not comprehend what that policy entails or are merely using it as a false pretense to have the article removed.
You're welcome. And I urge you to PLEASE familiarize yourself with the definition of WP:SYNTH before claiming that this article contains synthesized material :) Based Kashmiri (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please pinpoint a source for me that talks about the Pala-Tibetan wars/conflicts? Please quote the relevant material if the source is not freely accessible online. If we don't actually have details about the war/s, then the material is better convered in discussions of the extent of the Pala domain or the same under a particular ruler. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are reliable sources provided in the background section, and Dharmapāla's conflict with Tibetans and Devapāla's conflict with Tibetans. Here is one of them:
The ancestors of these 'Niwads' (Nimars), while living in Nimar of Central India, seem to have been hired as mercenaries to fight with Tibetan occupation armies either by Dharma Pala (770-815 A.D.) or his famous son King Deva Pala (815-855 A.D.), who had liberated entire Himalaya from the Tibetans. In the opinion of Dr. R.C. Majumdar, King Dharma Pala had already driven away the Tibetans from 'Kira Pradesh' (present day Kangada and Kinnaur of Himanchal Pradesh near Chandra-Bhaga and Nêyar country of Gadhwal). [In Munger Inscription, Deva Pala is credited to have liberated entire Himalayas from the Hunas (Tibetans).] Rahul Sanskrityan on the basis of Chinese historical records, writes that the Tibetans had lost their control in Himalayas during 839-848 A.D. (i.e. during the life time of Deva Pala).
* Source: Ancient Nepal. The Department of Archaeology Number 176. 2005. p. 16 [10th reference in the article] Based Kashmiri (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Devapāla came into conflict with Tibet, there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Räjä Dharma- påla to submit. Devapāla also may have come to clash with them and defeated them.
* Source: 1. Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages. p. 312.
2. Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2. pp. 252–253. Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have sources mentioning their conflicts/wars as "Dharmapāla's Conflict with the Tibetans" (Regmi, D. R. (1965). Medieval Nepal: Early medieval period, 750-1350 A.D. Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay. p. 88.) and "Devapāla's Conflict with the Tibet"(Chowdhury, Abdul Momin (1967). Dynastic History Of Bengal. p. 39.), I think it would be more appropriate to change the title of the article to "Pāla Conflicts with the Tibet".
What do you think about it? Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still not notable. If you need something to get added into Wikipedia, add those into the parent articles;if they fails WP:GNG. Imperial[AFCND] 12:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the sources listed in the discussion above are the best sources we have, there was no such thing as the "Pala Tibetan War", let alone whether it meets WP:GNG. -- asilvering (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's lots of discussion here, but some concrete !votes are needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete The volume of talk here is not a good sign, but in any case, the fact that there's no appeal to a work specifically on this subject is a red flag, as one would expect something of the sort for a notable conflict which supposedly went on for many decades. Mangoe (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the absence of a source which actually covers the subject says that this is WP:OR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - OR and SYNTH all around. This is not notable if no one has talked about specifically a conflict between the Tibetans and Palas. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:33, 6 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rox De Luca

Rox De Luca (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)

Regrettably, I'm not seeing evidence that the subject passes WP:GNG/WP:NARTIST. I hope to be proved wrong! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Arts, Visual arts, Italy, and Australia. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there seem to be enough reputable sources on the page for notability. Will watch this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, please let me know what is missing to make notability.louibu (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, considerable work has been done on this page since the AfD was posted. Can the discussion be closed and the notice removed? Louibu (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not seeing evidence that the subject passes WP:NARTIST, so I won't be withdrawing the nomination. In particular, in my reading, the presented sources don't seem enough to constitute significant critical attention, nor is the subject's work represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, which seem the two easiest criteria for the subject to pass. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 08:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion will run at least seven days. There is no reason present for a speedy close in either direction. Star Mississippi 13:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Keep, evidence of the subject's work represented within permanent collections of several notable galleries has been added. Carolinephillips (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            What are these notable galleries, and where is the evidence? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.roxdeluca.com/images/Gleaning_for_plastics_defying_wastefulness_by_Paul_Allatson_2020_.pdf Yes No This is a reupload on the subject's website of a blogspot article (WP:SELFPUBLISH). No See WP:SELFPUBLISH. ✘ No
https://www.roxdeluca.com/index.php/artist-cv-curriculum-de-arte No This is the artist's CV. Yes See WP:ABOUTSELF. No See WP:ABOUTSELF. ✘ No
https://theculturetrip.com/pacific/australia/articles/sea-of-plastic-an-artists-quest-to-address-ocean-pollution Yes Yes Yes This is a travel guide website that ran an article on the artist. ✔ Yes
https://searchthecollection.nga.gov.au/object?keyword=anna%20de%20luca&searchIn=artistOrCulture&searchIn=title&searchIn=medium&uniqueId=127158 Yes Yes No Doesn't mention the subject; this is just the link to a painting by the subject's mother. ✘ No
https://gunyah.blogspot.com/search?q=rox+de+luca No This is a residency report from the subject itself on a blog. Yes See WP:ABOUTSELF. No See WP:ABOUTSELF. ✘ No
https://www.artshub.com.au/news/features/artists-giving-materials-a-new-life-2512531/ Yes Yes ~ This is a fairly short mention; the subject is not the main focus of the article, but is quoted, with some commentary on their work. ~ Partial
Millner, Jacqueline; Moore, Catriona (2022). Contemporary art and feminism. New York: Routledge. p. 193. Yes Yes Yes Offline source, accepting in good faith: according to the block quotation, this is a paragraph mention in the book. ✔ Yes
Brennan, Anne (1 December 1997). "Beyond reason: Jo Darbyshire and Rox De Luca". Eyeline. 35: 22–24. Yes Yes Yes Offline source, accepting in good faith, though the title suggests this may be an interview. ✔ Yes
https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/45398/2/The%20Transcultural%20Edge.pdf Yes Yes Yes A paragraph mention on the subject and their work. ✔ Yes
Allatson, Paul (1996). "Men and Mettle". Artlink. 16 (1): 24–26. Yes Yes Yes Offline source, accepting in good faith. ✔ Yes
https://www.gq.com.au/style/trends/the-style-download-15324/image-gallery/a1114634ed7db996d49f80ed40e73536 Yes Yes Yes Very short mention of the subject and one of their works. ✔ Yes
https://www.projectvortex.org/ No This is a project with which the artist is associated. Yes No Name doesn't even feature in the source. ✘ No
https://www.artshub.com.au/news/reviews/review-deakin-university-contemporary-small-sculpture-award-2018-256473-2360787/ Yes Yes No Very short, one-sentence mention of the subject and one of their works, which to me constitutes a trivial mention. ✘ No
https://www.unsw.edu.au/news/2017/07/the-inaugural-ravenswood-australian-womens-art-prize--finalists Yes Yes No Just the subject's name is mentioned. ✘ No
https://www.artshub.com.au/news/sponsored-content/turning-waste-into-art-is-a-community-affair-261135-2368551/ Yes Yes No Just the subject's name is mentioned. ✘ No
https://www.woollahragallery.com.au/Artists/Artist-in-Residence/Rox-de-Luca No This is her biography as an artist-in-residence, almost certainly written by the subject. Yes No See WP:ABOUTSELF. ✘ No
https://www.deakin.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/2192259/deakin_university_art_collection_artists.pdf Yes No No Just the subject's name is mentioned. ✘ 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}}.
Your mileage may vary, but to me, these sources, assessed together, do not demonstrate that WP:GNG is met. In particular, we have only one "chunky" piece that focuses on the artist, while the rest are either borderline trivial mentions or the artist and their work are discussed, in no more than a paragraph, as a subtopic. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the source analysis shows that sufficient sources have been obtained to reach GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 18 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) 13:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMO WP:BASIC is marginally met. X (talk) 13:03, 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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patricio Vidal (Chilean footballer)

Patricio Vidal (Chilean footballer) (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 can't find any mention of this guy anywhere. He seems to have been a bit player on the teams he played. WP:GNG fails. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Do You Like Horny Bunnies?

Do You Like Horny Bunnies? (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 general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ltbdl (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG with two sources; they might be hard copy, but they help the article pass, and there are surely digital sources out there easily. Nate • (chatter) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The above analysis is in error: both print sources in the article are WP:TRIVIAL mentions of the title in a listed example of adult games, they fall clearly short of WP:SIGCOV and do not establish WP:GNG. Without doing a WP:BEFORE, stating digital sources out there might establish notability is a WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. I have looked on WP:VG/SE and the Internet Archive and could only find a situational source review from Jason Venter of Honest Gamers here. One review is not enough coverage to substantiate notability. Maybe there's much more in terms of WP:NONENG sources out there. As ever, happy to change my view if more reliable coverage is found. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Both the game and its sequel got reviews from Absolute Games (review for 1 here, 2 here). Waxworker (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great find! If there's one more out there, that seems comfortably notable for me. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The WIRED article and book excerpt are not actually about the game, but about eroge in general, and mention the game trivially. One Absolute Games review is not going to cut the mustard. MobyGames only lists said review and Animetric, and I am unsure of the reliability of the latter. An Internet Archive search also had only trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 07:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vrxces's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to ZyX (brand) the developer as ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 05:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: How do the delete !voters feel about a redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ZyX. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the print sources Laukku found constitute sigcov, and should together with the other be enough to meet GNG.--AlexandraIDV 07:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this now meets GNG after considering Laukku's sources. Charcoal feather (talk) 00:04, 13 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 01:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Buddy Story

A Buddy Story (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)

Found zero evidence of notability myself. Mushy Yank added a Variety article which mentions the film, but only very briefly, so I don't take it for much. And even then, if that's all there is then I don't see why this should've been dePRODded in the first place. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete doesn't seem to meet WP:NF. It was missing from two of the cast's filmography tables so I added it in, noticed that Elizabeth Moss and Torah Feldshuh have both made more recent films that don't have articles so unless anyone can find better independent sources I don't think this needs an entry. Orange sticker (talk) 15:30, 25 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) 15:47, 29 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) 16:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Slash Film and MTV are RS, but they only briefly talk about the film's trailer, which I don't think help meet film notability. Those are about all I can find as well, I don't think we have enough for film notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of football clubs in Somalia. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosaso FC

Bosaso FC (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)

Since, per WP:NTEAM, teams and clubs have to demonstrate WP:GNG for a standalone article, then this fails WP:GNG as there's nothing to establish notability. Pieces from Hoorse Media ([41], [42]) can not be considered independent as they sponsor the club. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Somalia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does seem slightly odd to discount sources from what appears to be a reliable media source for the region because they support the club given the region, but there's other sources out there which can be used to improve the article such as [43] and mentions in [44] and [45]. Another problem here is most of this part of the world happens on Facebook. SportingFlyer T·C 23:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bosaso FC is an existing local sports club in Somalia with sponsorship of Horseed Media Group. Page deserves not to delate as editor from Somalia club is existing Muscab30 (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me recommend we should not delete this page. Club is an existing local sport club in Somalia. Muscab30 (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There are reliable sources here, as sponsorships don't detract from journalistic independence. Indeed, sponsorship adds to the team's notability. The team is simply not mainstream or well covered. This feels like a further example of unconscious WP:BIAS discounting teams, players, etc. from places like Somalia. Anwegmann (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong keep as per discussion the source of the reference used other reliable sources from different pages. Muscab30 (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the football club exists, but the only (single) news source about the club is by the news outlet that sponsors the club. WP:GNG needs multiple, independent reliable sources that are more than just passing mentions (source 4 doesn't mention the club at all). Sionk (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect is not the only single news source there is different source used check the page or are related and are original language is Somali language since the team is in SOMALIA Muscab30 (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer for the sorce 4 the source four is related tgis topic is about Puntland the state responsible the team area is the federal member state of Somalia responsible managing snd regulating football in the area of Bosaso FC. Bosaso FC operates under Puntland. Muscab30 (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is incorrect - source 4 clearly states Bosaso FC is owned by Bosaso City- the commercial town of Puntland in Bari region. There's enough here for a stand-alone article. SportingFlyer T·C 18:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of football clubs in Somalia per nom. Fails GNG due to limited independent SIGCOV. Frank Anchor 04:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 13:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: : Sorry, after checking the good sources, it may be eligible for deletion or redirectionGQO (talk) 9:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of football clubs in Somalia per WP:ATD. Fails WP:SIGCOV as the news coverage is from a media outlet that sponsors the club, which clearly makes the coverage not independent.4meter4 (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis (it need not be formal) would be helpful. Also, User:Muscab30, please strike one of your bolded "votes" as I'm not sure which one reflects your current opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are four sources in the article - one from the UN, which isn't great; one from Puntlandes, which is coverage of the league, but also includes a few sentences specifically on the club which can be used to expand the article, and is similar the type of coverage I look for when creating articles on clubs; a DW article which doesn't specifically mention the club; and a cable TV interview on Youtube, which would generally be considered unreliable but is clearly a cable TV network putting up one of their broadcasts. In the AfD, there are two good articles from the newspaper which sponsors the team which don't appear to be promotional in any way; a Warsom article about a friendly Bosaso played in that the president of Puntland attended, which is excellent coverage; a reference in a scholarly article which can be used in the article to describe who owns the team, but is not GNG-qualifying; and a fixture list for the league which features an alternate spelling of the team. Between the sponsoring newspaper, the Puntlandes article, and the Warsom article, it's a pass in my opinion, but if we're going to be strict and say that the sponsoring newspaper doesn't count, it becomes more marginal. As I've already noted, most of the media coverage for Puntland actually happens on Facebook, so if we're going to go letter of the law GNG it's more likely to be redirected, but if we go spirit of GNG and say that we need reliable sources which show that the club has been written about by secondary sources, it's a keep. I'm still strongly advocating for this to be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 00:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: most of news in Somalia are in Facebook so it's very limited to find websites written about such areas, so I believe it's unfair to mark this article "deletion" dealing contextual argument will improve diverse approach of dealing such situations. The only thing that you believed in horseedmedia media is the sponsor of the this club and can't be referred to source, first Horseed Media is well-known and respected Media station in Somalia with reliable information in Somalia context, secondly, we used other source to follow your directives and rules mentioned above as editor, contributor and creator of this article I believe it's completely appropriate rules and regulations of Wikipedia and should be accepted. Muscab30 (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Longer note below, it broke the template
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin note, I had closed this as The result was redirect‎ to List of football clubs in Somalia as a viable ATD. Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient independence. This isn't as close as it looks with a keep noting the team is neither mainstream nor well covered, which negates the !vote which I still believe to be a correct read. @SportingFlyer: raised some good points at my Talk about the points they'd raised above and I offered to relist in lieu of DRV. Star Mississippi 13:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note about the new close: At a glance, views seem to be all over the place. However, with only two keep !votes, consensus is clearly against keeping this article. That leaves delete or redirect, slightly favoring redirect. When in doubt between those two, it seems prudent to go with the least destructive option. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:42, 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 10:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Representative of the UNHCR and WFP, London

Representative of the UNHCR and WFP, London (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)

Contested PROD of an individual office of the UNHCR. Completely fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. Zero secondary sources, only source is government listing of diplomatic missions. AusLondonder (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect. Repeating the reason I gave for deprodding this: "This should be (merged and) redirected somewhere. Possibly List of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom#International organisations but a page about the UNHCR/WFP representatives would be better if there is one". Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree there's anything particularly useful to merge. I really doubt many readers already on Wikipedia are going to be searching "Representative of the UNHCR and WFP, London" to get to a list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They won't be using this title to find a list of diplomatic missions in London, but they will be using this title to find the content we have about this topic that is located at the list page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A redirect is effectively from a search term, other than incoming links (which mostly seem to be from the diplomatic missions in London template). I'm questioning who will be using such a specific, lengthy search term. I think it's a very implausible search term. If they forget to add WFP when searching, they'll get nowhere but if they include WFP there's a redirect? That's so arbitrary and unnecessary. Keep in mind that prior to the PROD and AfD, the page was struggling to get a single view a day. AusLondonder (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article merely confirms it exists, fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or redirect as an ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:28, 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) 02:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom toweli (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Office of the World Bank, London

Office of the World Bank, London (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)

Contested PROD of an individual office of the World Bank. No other office has its own page. Clearly fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect which is what I said should happen when I deprodded this. I'm just not certain what the best target is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the proposer of a merge or redirect cannot identify a target, that's a rather significant problem. You deprodded the article but failed to suggest a credible alternative to deletion. In that case, the article should be deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect - Altenmann >talk 03:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, merge what and to where? AusLondonder (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article merely confirms it exists. Fails GNG and not worth redirecting/merging. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the building that it's located in - originally assumed it was about the building, but it's about an office in the building which clearly fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is wrong, the World Bank no long has an office at Millbank Tower. AusLondonder (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should delete it. SportingFlyer T·C 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is leaning towards deletion since a redirect target has not been identified. Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Millbank Tower#Occupants as WP:ATD - plausible search term to existing article (unless I'm missing something bleeding obvious)? Ingratis (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would we redirect to their former office location? That makes absolutely no sense. ATD doesn't mean we can never delete an article and should instead create incorrect and pointless redirects just so we don't have to ever delete anything. AusLondonder (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, there is no point redirecting to a former office location. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because: (a) it's not a newly-created redirect - see WP:R#KEEP #4: the article has been there for 11 years; (b) WP:R#KEEP #5 - just because you don't find it useful doesn't mean it isn't to someone; (c) in general WP:REDIRECT - the balance is to keep redirects unless they meet specific criteria for deletion, and this one doesn't; (d) why on earth would anyone come to Wikipedia to find the current London address of the World Bank? they are more likely to want reminding of its previous far higher profile location: Millbank Tower is notable, whereas 1 Tudor Street (as yet) is not; and (e) in any case the WB London current address is included in both articles.
I'll underline that I'm not advocating keeping the article itself. Ingratis (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a ridiculous and blatantly misleading redirect. How does it meet WP:RPURPOSE? I'm actually quite confused by your reasoning. In the unlikely event someone is looking for information on the London office of the World Bank how does redirecting them to Millbank Tower assist? Frankly a redirect in these circumstances would meet multiple criteria at WP:R#DELETE. AusLondonder (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, because apart from anything else the Millbank Tower article includes the current address of the World Bank in London (which is nowhere else on Wikipedia, I think), if there is anyone who is really too dim to use the World Bank's own website instead. We've reached the usual conclusion of a Wikipedia discussion - "I say it is" vs "I say it isn't" - and there'll be no further progress, so I'm leaving it there. Ingratis (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The key reason - there are no other branches on Wikipedia. And the references are poor enough. Delete without redirecting is also a good idea. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    obviously fails GNG
    N 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:30, 13 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. ✗plicit 01:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandhan Mutual Fund

Bandhan Mutual Fund (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)

Trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. Citations are collections of paid news which are highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The primary issue arises from the editor's attempt to pass off two financial products (exchange traded funds), namely BANDHAN S&P BSE SENSEX ETF (BSE:540154) and BANDHAN NIFTY 50 ETF (NSE:IDFNIFTYYET), as company's own stock market listings, which they are not, thereby failing to adhere to WP:LISTED. A comparable effort was observed in the AFD discussion of Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance, wherein the company tried to be part of NIFTY 50 without proper validation. In a nutshell, the company falls short when it comes to meeting WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. To put it mildly, they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a banjo and their depth is about as shallow as a puddle in the Sahara. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 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! 11:20, 6 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 withdraw‎ per WP:HEY. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Williams (rugby union, born 1970)

Steve Williams (rugby union, born 1970) (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 finding enough here to meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG, coverage seems to only be routine match announcements. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As said above, probably more offline, but there’s some content that can be used to expand beyond stub article.RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to follow up, added significant number of sources from his playing and coaching career. Should be enough to meet notability requirements.
RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 18:00, 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. ✗plicit 13:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dyras

Dyras (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, nothing pops up in a WP:BEFORE in English and German. Broc (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Willis (politician)

Mark Willis (politician) (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 Notability for WP:Politician (never an elected State/Federal representative), nor more broadly for WP:BIO. He appears to have been involved in a brief internal spat within the Republican Party as a member of a State Republican Committee, which garnered a handful of reportage at the time, but probably falls under WP:NSUSTAINED. In particular, the initial version of the article pretty much read as a campaign document for his run at RNC Chair and included a great deal of unverified personal bio - probably created by the subject or someone closely associated with him. This has been edited out over time for a more Neutral POV and encyclopaedic style, but there's no evidence of notability outside of that brief party-internal politicking. It does not appear that there's anything worth merging (or redirecting) to another article unless the objections to the 2012 RNC Rule Changes were themselves considered notable enough for an article.Hemmers (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Reads like a resume, skims the surface of his work background, with no substance about any of it. Not notable anything. Sourcing is all political focus.— Maile (talk) 14:04, 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 13:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Malaysia A3 Community League

2024–25 Malaysia A3 Community League (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, seasonal article for a fully-amateur 4th division of Malaysian football, no indication of any significant coverage outside of primary sources. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then it needs to be drafted first, this article is basically one huge "this section is empty" and nothing else, there is literally no content in the article. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This tournament not start yet, schedule in May. I will find reliable source to update in this article. FM Malaysia (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. I don't see any reason to delete this, since the work that's already been done here will simply need to be recreated as we get closer to the event. -- asilvering (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 13:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consort Chen Farong

Consort Chen Farong (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 refs on the page for many years. Not seeing useful refs but they may exist in other languages. At present there are various claims on the page which should be removed per WP:V JMWt (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China. JMWt (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having written this a long time ago, I agree that it could and should be sourced better. However, as the mother of an emperor of a large state, she is inherently notable. --Nlu (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nlu, any chance you remember what sources you used to write it? -- asilvering (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reluctantly. I don't see the sources. There's a paragraph in the Southern History [46] that discusses her. But secondary sources in English seem to be absent, and those in Chinese appear (I'm skimming here) to mainly be from Chinese Wikipedia or Baidu Baike or scrapes of those articles, or to be brief mentions in articles on her son. Oblivy (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) 223.204.68.123 (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've redacted the comment. Thank you for your research on the sources below and for improving the article. These sources were difficult to find since it required four searches (the subject's two Chinese names and in the traditional and simplified Chinese representations of those names). It is not surprising that editors did not find sources. Oblivy does lots of good searches for sources for AfDs and is one of AfD's more thoughtful participants. Cunard (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

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

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. Chen, Huaxin 陈华新 (1992). 中国历代后妃大观 [A Grand View of Chinese Concubines Through the Ages] (in Chinese). Shenzhen: Shenzhen Publishing House [zh]. p. 168. ISBN 9787805424675. Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "陈法容发生性关系,于 469 年(宋明帝泰始五年)生了皇三子刘准(后来的宋顺帝) , 471 年封刘准为安成王,晋陈法容为昭华。 472 年明帝死,陈昭华为安成王太妃。 477 年刘准即位为宋顺帝,陈氏为皇太妃。 479 年顺帝禅位,萧道成称帝,建立齐朝,宋亡。陈法容被废去皇太妃称号。她大概死于齐朝初年。"

      From Google Translate: "Chen Farong had sexual relations and gave birth to the third son of the emperor Liu Zhun (later Emperor Shun of the Song Dynasty) in 469 (the fifth year of Taishi reign of Emperor Ming of the Song Dynasty). In 471, Liu Zhun was granted the title of King Ancheng, and Chen Farong of the Jin Dynasty was granted the title of Zhaohua. When Emperor Ming died in 472, Chen Zhaohua became Princess Ancheng. In 477, Liu Zhun ascended the throne as Emperor Shun of the Song Dynasty, and Chen became the imperial concubine. In 479, Emperor Shun ascended the throne, Xiao Daocheng proclaimed himself emperor, established the Qi Dynasty, and the Song Dynasty fell. Chen Farong was deprived of the title of Crown Princess. She probably died in the early years of the Qi Dynasty."

    2. 皇后妃嫔传 [The Queen's Concubines] (in Chinese). Hainan: Hainan Publishing House [zh]. 1994. pp. 126–127. ISBN 9787805907451. Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books.

      The book notes on page 126: "陈法容,生卒年不详,宋明帝的昭华。... 明帝的陈昭华名叫法容。"

      From Google Translate: "Chen Farong, whose birth and death dates are unknown, was born in Zhaohua, Emperor Ming of the Song Dynasty. ... Emperor Ming's Chen Zhaohua was named Farong."

      The book notes on page 127: "顺帝就是桂阳王刘休范的儿子,以陈昭华为母亲。明帝去世后,陈昭华被拜为安成王太妃。顺帝即位,进封陈昭华为皇太妃。顺帝将皇帝位禅让后,陈昭华被取消了皇太妃的称号。(赵元译)【原文】明帝陈昭华讳法容,丹阳建康人也。"

      From Google Translate: "Emperor Shun was the son of King Liu Xiufan of Guiyang, and his mother was Chen Zhaohua. After the death of Emperor Ming, Chen Zhaohua was worshiped as Princess Ancheng. Emperor Shun ascended the throne and granted Chen Zhaohua the title of Crown Princess. After Emperor Shun abdicated the throne, Chen Zhaohua was revoked from the title of Crown Princess. (Translated by Zhao Yuan) [Original text] Chen Zhaohua, Emperor Ming, was a native of Jiankang in Danyang."

    3. Dan, Bo 淡泊 (2006). 中华万姓谱 [Genealogy of Chinese Surnames] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Archives Publishing House [zh]. p. 1438. ISBN 9787801666819. Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "陈法容( ? ~ ? ) ,女,南朝宋丹阳建康人。宋明帝昭华。宋顺帝即为陈法容所抚养。宋顺帝即位,进为皇太妃。"

      From Google Translate: "Chen Farong (? ~ ?), female, was born in Jiankang, Danyang, Southern Song Dynasty. Zhaohua, Emperor Ming of the Song Dynasty. Emperor Shun of the Song Dynasty was raised by Chen Farong. Emperor Shun of the Song Dynasty ascended the throne and became the imperial concubine."

    4. Tang, Xiejun 唐燮军 (2007). 六朝吴兴沈氏及其宗族文化探究 [Research on the Shen Family and Their Clan Culture in Wuxing During the Six Dynasties] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. p. 371. ISBN 9787500465034. Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "考中華書局點校本《宋書·后妃·明帝陳昭華傳》云"

      From Google Translate: "According to the "Book of Song·Concubine·Ming Emperor Chen Zhaohua Biography" compiled by Zhonghua Book Company, it says"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chen Farong (simplified Chinese: 陈法容; traditional Chinese: 陳法容), also known as Chen Zaohua (Chinese: 陈昭华), to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

    Cunard (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep happy to see this article kept, and it's justified based on the discussion in Southern History, the Chen Huaxin article and the lesser treatment in 皇后妃嫔传. Per WP:NBASIC we can combine multiple sources with less substantial treatment for biographical articles. Oblivy (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Throne (company)

Throne (company) (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:NCORP, appears not notable BoraVoro (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: yet to match the social media networking site’s guidelines. For now its DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarshalDhotre06 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:08, 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 00:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Exchange (India) Ltd

Ion Exchange (India) Ltd (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 WNCORP , no sufficient reliable sources, nor general notability BoraVoro (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am ready to update the article based on your suggestions. Please let me know what changes are required on the page Akhare 2024 (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have added some more citations to the page Akhare 2024 (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently updated the article with citations, is it ok to close this discussion and remove the notice from the article? Akhare 2024 (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, more sources were added but none of them are sufficient to meet WP:NCORP. I can't find any independent sources that provide in-depth coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:07, 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. ✗plicit 13:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Myth (band)

AfDs for this article:
The Myth (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)

Very little coverage on the web. Being a support act and esp. for tribute bands does not establish notability per WP:BAND. Previous AfD nomination was closed due to prior vandalism on the page. InDimensional (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified by Doomsdayer above that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:07, 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 draftify‎. The result would normally be delete, but there's potential for this to be notable in the future, with someone expressing interest in updating a draft, so draftify is a better alternative to deletion in this case. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Malaysia A2 Amateur League

2024–25 Malaysia A2 Amateur League (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)

Seasonal article for a non-notable lower division amateur league in Malaysia, nothing indicates that such an article would pass WP:GNG Snowflake91 (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify I do think it's notable - it does get coverage in local papers, and a third tier amateur league isn't ineligible if it passes WP:GNG. The bigger problem here is that it appears to be WP:TOOSOON - all of the coverage is from last season, such as [51] [52]. SportingFlyer T·C 02:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This tournament not start yet, schedule in June. I will find reliable source to update in this article. FM Malaysia (talk) 03:05, 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. ✗plicit 14:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca and Ailurus fulgens)

Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca and Ailurus fulgens) (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)

Topic is not needed. It is handled at both of the species' articles (giant panda and red panda) as well as the disambiguation (panda (disambiguation)). - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, and Biology. UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - eminently superfluous. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree it's redundant with the species articles. If there is any intersection discussion between the two in terms of characteristics, that can be handled in the respective species articles like we do for other species that share a name or similarity. KoA (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Adding onto KoA's point, the respective Giant panda and Red panda articles already emphasize these species' distinct evolutionary history with Red panda#Phylogeny providing multiple phylogenetic trees to explain this point. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 07:18, 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 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 04:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Wirth (cyclist)

Max Wirth (cyclist) (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)

lugnuts stub. fails notability guidelines for cyclists. ltbdl (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Switzerland. ltbdl (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the German Wikipedia, he was a Swiss national champion in cycling and there's several offline sources which are referenced. Those should be checked, and also one should check Swiss newspaper archives, as it seems quite likely a nation's national cycling champion would be covered there. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if the Swiss Cycling Association is independent though? Let'srun (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm... true. I was also just able to find what appears to be an online Swiss newspaper archive -- see here. I can't figure out how to get it to work, though... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I narrowed down the search for you: {"Max Wirth" AND (Rad OR Velo)} and a little wither search: {"Max Wirth" AND (Rad* OR Velo*)} Maybe you'll find a good source. I have no time to do the search. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 19:55, 24 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) 10:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:08, 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 23:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Vietnam

AfDs for this article:
Sports broadcasting contracts in Vietnam (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. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:36, 8 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! 07:04, 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) 10:34, 22 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, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 29 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  22:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This fails to meet the WP:LISTN criteria. Let'srun (talk) 14:54, 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. Owen× ☎ 23:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Thailand

Sports broadcasting contracts in Thailand (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. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Thailand. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No opinion on the page in its current format, which does seem to be WP:LISTCRUFT, but it's a notable topic with potential for a valid article, especially given the long-standing legal and political issues surrounding broadcasting rights for major sporting events (mostly football) since 2012, which have been widely covered.[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] If the page does get deleted it should be without prejudice to the creation of a proper article. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 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) 10:34, 22 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, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep based on sources found. Deletion is not cleanup. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite sources, will never pass WP:NLIST. A list wihtout body text for context will never pass GNG too. This is 2024, not 2004. Wikipedia standards has gone a long way since. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here.  // Timothy :: talk  22:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a tv guide, this fails to meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 14:31, 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. Owen× ☎ 11:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Draven

Jamie Draven (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 significant in-depth coverage. All I could find were passing mentions (more or less like these 1, 2, 3, 4) and Wiki mirrors. Moreover, the article is unreferenced. X (talk) 10:20, 22 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) 15:51, 29 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) 16:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Appears to fail WP:NACTOR. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This should not go without consensus, being a crummy unreferenced junk with only an IMDb link. At the very least it should be drafted if not deleted. X (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xoak: We typically do draftify if someone has offered to work on it in the AfD. But if we go ahead with draftification and no one is interested in actually working on the article, then it'll just get WP:CSD G13 deleted in 6 months anyways. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is true that he's not terribly prolific, but he did have a major role in a highly influential film so I think he scrapes by. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He doesn't need to be prolific, just someone with adequate sig coverage would do. And regarding playing significant roles, WP:NACTOR states The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. He fails these two as well as I'd not say that "the person hasn't made unique, prolific, or innovative contributions to the field of entertainment", in any case we'd still need a source for this statement. And If no sig coverage sources can be added at all, then this should not be kept. X (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unsourced BLP. Fails GNG and NBIO. No sources in article, above keep vote found no sources, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth, more of the same non-SIGCOV that nom found. BLPs require strong sourcing, this has none.  // Timothy :: talk  02:57, 14 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 14:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2027 Pan American Games

Football at the 2027 Pan American 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)

WP:TOOSOON. There is absolutely no need or use for this page so far away from the 2027 Games. The desire to create articles too early should be stamped out. It won't be any more useful in six months either, negating the desirability of draftification. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 South American U-17 Women's Championship and many others. Geschichte (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Pesina

AfDs for this article:
Carlos Pesina (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. No pre or post-wiki sig coverage. Being on the crew in a lot of video games does not automatically inherit notability. Wikipedia Library, Newspapers.com, and current Google search results in hardly any in-depth sig coverage. Passings mentions/brief coverage I could find from major pubs: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7- do not help passing GNG. X (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Martial arts. X (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing has changed in the article since the previous discussion. There's no doubt he was part of the Mortal Kombat animation and motion capture, but there's still no indication of significant coverage of him. A much better case can be made for his brother, but notability is not inherited. Perhaps a case can be made for redirect or merge to the article on Daniel Pesina, but I'm not seeing the rationale for an individual article on Carlos. Papaursa (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Still fails WP:BASIC, only passing mentions, no significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 12:47, 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 Nomination withdrawn‎. The lack of sig coverage is addressed now. But the article now needs a total rewrite only having information supported by the sources. (non-admin closure) X (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kelso

Lee Kelso (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. The only pre-wiki sig coverage I could find is a WSJ article (which is also not solely about him, but his company-related investments). Even searching today, the subject does not appear to have any in-depth coverage whatsoever. Being an anchor for TV stations does not automatically inherit notability. I checked via Newspapers.com and Wikipedia Library, and couldn't find any printed sources that discuss him. All available online, and in print, were passing mentions focusing on the TV programs, and mentioning him as the anchor. X (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Television. X (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here, Xoak, is that Fort Wayne newspapers are not in Newspapers.com. They are in databases TWL does not provide, namely GenealogyBank/NewsBank. There are some longer pieces, but it would take a lot for me to keep a page on an anchor in a sub-100 DMA. Take a look at what I've hauled up and tell me if I need to dig up more: [63]; [64] + [65] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sammi Brie, These are wonderful sources. Kudos for digging up. So much so that I'd be willing to withdrew my nomination now. Tho the article needs a trim and should only have information with newly provided inline citations. X (talk) 08:57, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Air Kasaï Antonov An-26B crash

2005 Air Kasaï Antonov An-26B crash (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)

Accident barely demonstrates notability. Fails the general notability guideline, the event criteria and doesn't demonstrate any lasting effects. Accident barely has any coverage whatsoever. I've only been able to find three news channels covering it including two in french and one in english: NBC news; Congo Planète (French); AllAfrica (French). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:44, 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 14:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tayler Kane

Tayler Kane (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 with an IMDb external link. Pre-wiki coverage was hard to find, even a cursory Google search today shows nothing. Although the actor seems to have played several minor roles in notable shows, there's no significant coverage of him that I could find. If printed sources exist, one may list them. X (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Šulc

Pavel Šulc (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 apologize if this may not be a good nomination because I do not follow Czech football league, but am doing so as what the tag states. Despite the corresponding CZ Wikipedia article being longer, from what I can read, the secondary sources listed there only contain brief mentions on Pavel Šulc himself; nothing in-depth to pass WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Béatrice d'Hirson

Béatrice d'Hirson (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 general notability guideline. entire section in the article about her apperance in fiction. french article has no citations. ltbdl (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and France. ltbdl (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: appearance in fiction and film contributes to her notability and is a reason for Wikipedia to have the article, to satisfy the curiosity of the viewer/reader who wants to know "Who was she?" "Was she fact or fiction?". PamD 08:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a badly worded deletion request, which makes it difficult to reply to. However even significant fictional characters can be notable. "The Accursed Kings" may not be well known in Britain, although the 1972 adaptation was shown on British television, but I believe it is well known in France. Whether the French Wikipedia version has citations is completely irrelevant, this version now has some. PatGallacher (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • irrelevant aside - I loved watching this on tv in the early seventies and have not seen any mention of it anywhere for more than fifty years until reading this AfD. You’ve all made my day. Mccapra (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even more irrelevant comment. The original series is being shown on French television at the moment. Athel cb (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: French article appears to be PROMO for the film listed, I think this was a translation of that effort. I don't see anything about this person not related to the film. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Thierry Larchier d'Hirson. This article (Béatrice's uncle) already mentioned her, and the TV series, in which he also appears. I've added the cast info for Béatrice there, so no info or sources will be lost with the redirect. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 19:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:17, 22 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) 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - reasonable presence in fiction and got reasonable coverage as fictional character regardless obscurity in flesh. - Altenmann >talk 03:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. No sources provided by keep votes, which just boil down to ILIKEIT, not guidelines and sources, let alone sources with indepth content about subject.  // Timothy :: talk  03:44, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ștefan Buchiu

Ștefan Buchiu (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 don’t really see the types of references that would confirm notability per WP:PROF. Perhaps they exist (I couldn’t find any), but they aren’t here.

Out of the 18 references, 12 are from the official news agency (Basilica), newspaper (Lumina) or head office of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Two are the subject’s CVs hosted on his university’s site, while a third is on the site of the Musical Society with which he collaborated. Two are passing mentions from other theological seminaries. Finally, we have his CV reproduced in an obscure newspaper (Cuvântul Olteniei), probably sent by a press officer. Biruitorul Talk 07:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for initiating this discussion regarding the notability of Prof. Ștefan Buchiu and for your concerns about the types of references cited. It is indeed true that a portion of the references come from sources related to the Romanian Orthodox Church, such as the Basilica News Agency and Lumina newspaper. This is largely because Fr. Prof. Buchiu's contributions and activities are within the ecclesiastical and theological community. As a prominent figure in this domain, I believe coverage by these specialized sources is both expected and appropriate, reflecting his standing and influence in the field.
    In response to the need for additional independent sources, I have updated the article to include references to three significant books that discuss Prof. Buchiu’s biography and contributions to Orthodox theology. These books are reputable academic publications, providing a critical and scholarly view of his work and impact. Notably, one of these books is a festschrift in his honor, published on his 70th birthday, which includes contributions from fellow academics, underscoring his notability in the theological community. Such festschrifts are recognized in academia as significant honors that reflect a scholar's impact in their field.
    Moreover, the event of his 70th birthday itself, which was marked by significant academic and ecclesiastical gatherings, further supports his notability under the criteria outlined in WP:PROF. This event and the publication of the festschrift are indicative of his standing within the theological community enhancing the article's credibility and alignment with Wikipedia's notability standards for academics.
    Given these points, and considering the detailed criteria under WP:PROF, Prof. Buchiu’s scholarly output and his role in advancing Orthodox theology both domestically and internationally are documented and significant. His career enriches academic and theological discourse, making the retention of this article valuable for Wikipedia's coverage of notable academic figures in theology. KoreSoteria (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for those additional sources. The entry in Păcurariu, for example, is a good indication of notability. Let’s see if anyone else wishes to add something to the discussion. — Biruitorul Talk 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I am not familiar with the expected academic output in this field, but 21 citations since 2008 and an h-index of 3 on GS seem very low to me. There could be other metrics involved, such as the quality of the journals or the publishing houses where those publications appeared, but I cannot evaluate those. Turgidson (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have included additional authoritative references to Prof. Ștefan Buchiu's Wikipedia page to further substantiate his notability. The article now contains references from the Library of Congress Authorities and the Bibliothèque nationale de France, which are highly reputable sources that affirm Prof. Buchiu's academic standing. These sources provide a strong independent confirmation of his scholarly work and are indicative of his recognition in academic libraries globally. I believe these additions significantly strengthen the case for notability per WP:PROF. KoreSoteria (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln

Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln (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 congregation has no notability. St Helen's Church, Lincoln is grade II* listed and rightly has a separate article; Holy Cross Church has no claim to notability, and nor does the joint congregation which worships at the two churches. A merge proposal template was removed from the St Helen's article with no explanation, after a brief discussion of the proposed merge (propose, oppose from creator of both the articles, one further comment from proposer). I considered just redirecting this article to St Helen's but bring it here to get further eyes on the discussion. A Redirect to St Helen's Church, Lincoln would be my preferred outcome from this AfD. PamD 07:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. PamD 07:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to St Helen's Church, Lincoln or just redirect. There is mergeable content. The congregation are not notable for an article, per nom., but the joint use of this and another church by a single congregation is worth mention on the merge target page - it is the current use of this church. It is a small merge, but a merge nonetheless. The merge discussion has the page creator arguing for the notability of Holy Cross. I don't think those arguments pass muster, but they are not a reason to keep this page which is specifically about the joint congregation. A Holy Cross church article could be created although my view is that it would not meet notability requirements and should not be attempted without sufficient reliable secondary sourcing. I didn't see where the merge header was removed, but it clearly lacked visibility, so the discussion here is appropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboy The article on St Helen's already includes "The church is joined with the nearby Holy Cross Church as the "Congregation of Holy Cross and St Helen's".", with a link to the parish website. Is that enough? The merge header was removed earlier today with the uninformative edit summary "Slight tweaks". PamD 09:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see it now. Yes, on the basis the information is already there, I have unbolded my merge and bolded redirect instead in this edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree the two churches are linked and can be covered in St Helen's Church, Lincoln. There isn't a church called Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln, so that title as a redirect may be of limited use. For readers to find content on Holy Cross it would need a redirect page, titled "Holy Cross Church, Boultham" or such like. The main discussion point regarding a merge is whether there should be an infobox for each church, just for one of the churches or a combined one. Found brief local news reports on Holy Cross's opening in 1940, which can be used for additional factual content. None of the references currently in the article count towards notability and so far I haven't found feature length coverage. Rupples (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that one article is sufficient to cover both churches however it is accomplished. Esemgee (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Holy Cross church needs to be covered at all, except perhaps in a list of churches in Lincoln. It appears to have no claim to notability. PamD 13:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy Cross is mentioned in Boultham and Wikiproject UKGEOG content guidelines for settlements say to note churches within their locality WP:UKTOWNS#Religious sites — it doesn't state the church has to be notable for inclusion. Rupples (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Churches mentioned in settlement articles don't have to have their own article. Maybe this article should be renamed and redirected to St Helen's Church. Esemgee (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Take it you mean 'redirect' rather than 'article' as the closing word in the first sentence? Yes, agree with a retitle, and redirect to St Helen's but I've seen an admin state not to do this before the AfD closes. Suppose we'd recommend redirect under the current title then rename the redirect page. Rupples (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC). Strike, maybe misread. Rupples (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not established for this church. The title of this article "Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln" is inaccurate and misleading. It leads one to think it's the name of a single church building. The website for the church is Boulton Parish and the home page begins The Congregation at Holy Cross and St. Helen's. We already have an article St Helen's Church, Lincoln where reliably sourced detail on Holy Cross can be added. It's simpler to delete this, add a section to St Helen's about Holy Cross and create a redirect page, (suggest Holy Cross, Boultham) than redirect this article's rather nonsensical title. Rupples (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rupples There's already a redirect, with categories, at Holy Cross Church, Lincoln, and that is listed in the dab page at Holy Cross Church#United Kingdom. OK, have now created Holy Cross Church, Boultham as a second redirect. Both currently pointing to this article, Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln, but if this is deleted or redirected they should both target St Helen's Church, Lincoln where the church gets a mention. PamD 16:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to one name, one place, one church, one body. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to St Helen's Church, Lincoln, which bizarrely isn't even linked in the article. If there is anything worth merging, go ahead and save that bit, suitably cited, but apart from St Helen's there doesn't seem to be anything here worthy of note. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to St Helen's Church, Lincoln. Changing from delete to redirect as a new, more aptly named redirect has been created. Doesn't require a formal merge as there's so little to merge that any reliably sourced content can be added to the redirect target separately, should anyone feel inclined. A separate heading is warranted for Holy Cross in the St Helen's article as reading through it's starting to get confusing which church the text relates to. There is further relevant material that can be added about Holy Cross, though insufficient coverage to establish notability. In any case, as the churches are linked it is better for context the two are combined in the article for the church whose notability is proven. Rupples (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Rupples and Chiswick Chap. Mertbiol (talk) 18:35, 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 merge‎ to Terrorism in Yemen. Owen× ☎ 11:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Bin Salman mosque bombing

2008 Bin Salman mosque bombing (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 2 sources provided are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorism in Yemen under its own section. The coverage above does not convince me of long term notability; there was some commentary immediately after it occured, but not a lot. Most notable as part of the overall terrorism situation (which merging it to the article preserves) It's possible of course that long term coverage exists in another language and if evidence of that is ever provided I would not argue against its recreation, but I doubt it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 21:46, 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! 22:35, 6 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 List of Eberron novels#The Inquisitives. ✗plicit 05:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy of Wolves

Legacy of Wolves (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 article fails to list the notability of its subject, and does not display media coverage. The article was originally a redirect to List of Eberron modules and sourcebooks, which may say something about the book itself's notability. Samoht27 (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:50, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Childs

Casey Childs (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; no WP:SIGCOV; most recently edited by someone with an offensive username. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wasn't able to find much information about him, beyond the fact that he's a theatre director. There is a passing mention in a brief Playbill article, which states that he is directing the play, but that was the only source I could find about the Casey Childs that matched the article's description. The other sources were about various different people named Casey Childs. Bandit Heeler (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I object to the fact that the majority of the nom relates to the fact that one of the edits to this article was by User:USAstinks ("most recently edited by someone with an offensive username"). That is an argument to avoid. The user did not create this article, and in fact they made only one of the 65 edits to this article over the last 16+ years. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that. While I do believe that the article fails notability, I don't think the fact that one of the (not main) contributors to the article has an offensive name is a relevant point in a deletion discussion. Bandit Heeler (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it is not very relevant, but i do agree with the point that there is not enough information about him. Kasphero (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Primary Stages. There appears to be a painter called Casey Childs who is more notable per the online coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland#Marriage and children. On balance, the arguments for redirecting are stronger than those for keeping, not to mention more numerous. Owen× ☎ 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Nicolas of Sweden, Duke of Ångermanland

Prince Nicolas of Sweden, Duke of Ångermanland (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 nominating this article for failing to prove notability by WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. This is an 8-year-old child and should be redirected and merged into the parent article until such a time there is independent notability.

Move to restore redirect to Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland#Marriage and children section. Similar to Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland (9th in line for Succession to the Swedish throne). Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 23:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all Royals and those of Scandinavias children have separate articles. Why should the Swedish royals be any different. Still passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is independently notable. His titles as prince and duke belong to him, not to his parents. The deletion of Princess Laetitia Maria of Belgium was probably a mistake. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eastmain - it was likely not a mistake. A great number of adolescent children of nobility redirected to their parents regardless of their title/station. As noted above, please see previous AFDs of children of nobility. Additionally, King Gustaf's grandchildren no longer have royal titles (albeit a bit more nuanced). Just being a noble is not automatic notability (see the failed WP:NR discussion). Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is where most of you have it wrong including the Harpe Bazzer article cited the child of prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine only lost their styles of His/Her Royal Highness but they are still prince(s) and Princess (s) of Sweden, Duke(s) and Duchesses and still in the line of succession[1] they are listed by the royal court of Sweden as members of the royal family and are not required to perform any duties incumbent of the head of state Ug culture (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [2] Ug culture (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. The fact that this article contains no information about his life since his christening suggests that he is probably not in the public spotlight. In fact, he and his sisters have had their royal status downgraded since they were born; since 2019, they no longer have the style of "royal highness" and are no longer considered members of the Royal House, although they remain princes and princesses and members of the Royal Family. [69] Practically speaking, this means that as adults they will be expected to pursue careers outside royal duties rather than being paid by the monarch from government funds. (That's not mentioned in this article, but is mentioned at the redirect target.) If, in the future, Nicolas does go into the public spotlight, whether as a socialite or as anything else, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His grandfather's sisters(The Haga princesses) are nolonger members of the royal house and their articles are in existence.why then should articles of those who is in the line of succession be deleted and members who are not be retained Ug culture (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The criterion we use is not "Is this person in the line of succession?" but rather "Do we have enough significant coverage of the person in reliable independent sources to warrant an article?". Among persons related to monarchs, there may be some who are excluded from the succession but remain public figures and thus generate significant coverage, while others may be in the line of succession but out of the public eye at least for now (particularly young children). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is an approach that can be strongly questioned. Princes and princesses of reigning royal families are per definition important persons who warrant their own articles. Therefore, this article should be kept, and the deleted articles of his siblings and cousins should be reinstated. Marbe166 (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    if we are to go by this then Former Monarch of Denmark's grandchildren (prince Joachim's children) whose titles have been taken away and they do not generate significant coverage their articles have not been withdrawn and like Marbe166 said the deleted articles of prince Nicolas's siblings and his cousins should be reinstated Ug culture (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.kungahuset.se/english/royal-house. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://people.com/royals/princess-madeleine-and-prince-carl-philips-kids-were-stripped-of-their-royal-titles-by-the-king/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • Keep addendum: over 4 000 hits in Mediearkivet Retriever [sv]. Okay, some of them are about the Greek prince and the remainder is ~90% gossipy tabloids, which still leaves a couple of hundred hits in Swedish mainstream newspapers. I don't buy that we should have special rules for the nobility, it's the 21st century after all, but neither should anti-royalist sentiments cloud our judgement. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC) (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Articles shouldn't be recreated in violation of a previous community discussion. There's insufficient here for a standalone article at present. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Grandson of a ruling monarch and meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect First, I can't see how he meets WP:GNG. In many AfD discussions the phrase "Meets WP:GNG" seems to be just an elaborate WP:VOTE. If you think that he falls into WP:GNG, please explain why, otherwise your contribution does not provide much progress into a discussion. Second, please refer to the 2020 AfD discussion. If you want to reach a different consensus, you should explain what changed since then. Third, just beeing related to someone notable, like a ruling monarch, does not mean automatic notability, see WP:BIORELATED. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Titles are not, and should not be, part of the criteria for NBASIC. All of the coverage is about him as a relation to his parents and even then a lot of them are just photo galleries which do not amount to substantial coverage, which is to be expected as a christening is a pretty routine event - so they do not meet GNG by my reckoning. I don't know what is meant by Marbe166 saying per definition important persons who warrant their own articles, what definition is this refering to? Being an heir to anything shouldn't confer notability since notability is not inhereted. It is reasonble to assume that there will be coverage of this subject once he grows up, but since that's in the futre there's no good reason to have an article at the moment. ---- D'n'B-t -- 17:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect to Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland#Marriage and children: Per Nom. Lacks notability. Wikipedia is not a genealogy outlet nor is notability of royal households inherited (Example: Just being the grandson of a ruling monarch is not a stepping stone to an article), See WP:BLPFAMILY. Lacks significant, reliable, and independent coverage for a stand alone article. Bringing in that other stuff exists means there might be more AFD's needed. Notability (royalty) is a failed proposal. It states: "Anyone who was, at one point, an official member of a ruling family of a country is considered notable", which is against current community consensus. There is no compelling evidence that anything changed since consensus for the redirect. The people magazine source stated they "lost their official HRH (His/Her Royal Highness) titles" and further, "will no longer be members of The Royal House". The parents of the children involved all made statements they support the Kings decision so their children can have more privacy. Wikipedia should honor this for children. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly agree with this. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent (WP:OUTCOMES). What's good for Great Britain is good for Sweden. Bearian (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The relevant section of WP:OUTCOMES -- which isn't even a policy or guideline anyway -- doesn't particularly support keeping this article. It says, "The descendants of monarchs or nobles, especially deposed ones, are not considered notable for this reason alone. The principle that Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries is often mentioned in this context. But persons who are active in their capacity as a member of a royal house or as a holder of a title of nobility will often receive media coverage for it, which may help establish their notability according to the general notability guideline." (See WP:MONARCH.) Prince Nicolas, as an 8-year-old child, is not exactly "active" in the capacity of a member of a royal house. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Redirect to mother and revdel everything. Nicolas is a non-public figure, a child that has done nothing notable, and the only coverage about him is from royal-watching tabloid publications. The keep votes basically amount to "he has a royal title" or "he's in a royal family", but there's no SNG that says every royal gets a page no matter what. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Several of the keep !votes above rely on the fact that other article exist and that we'd also have to delete other articles if this one is deleted. WP:WHATABOUTX is a bad argument because we evaluate each article on its individual merits, not in reference to what other articles we may or may not have. Those !votes should be completely discounted. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment: Otr500 provides a great reason for REVDEL here: these children are no longer in the line of succession and the press coverage is about them existing, not about them doing anything notable. Our policies (BLP) require that we respect the privacy of these children. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. One look at Swedish-language sources shows that the guy gets sufficient coverage to warrant an article. Cortador (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. DrKay (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS, mentions are not indepth coverage, notability is not inherited from family connections, and crystal balls do not establish notability. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  17:47, 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 redirect‎ to KJJC-TV. There's a consensus here not to retain (between nominator, two bolded opinions and one comment), choosing redirect as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KINV-LD

KINV-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. Delete or merge with sister KJJC-TV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:50, 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 merge‎ to Islamic fundamentalism in Iran. Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic fundamentalism in Islamic Republic of Iran

Islamic fundamentalism in Islamic Republic of Iran (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)

Clear content fork, likely POV fork (trying to use Islamic Republic in the title as scare words). Article is a less-detailed overview of the article Islamic fundamentalism in Iran and confusingly shares a functionally identical title.

Not worth considering merging as the article exclusively cites encyclopedia entries and a couple American conservative media sources, nowhere near as rigorous as the existing article that already covers this topic. Dan • ✉ 04:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! Here's a revised and more formal version of the sentence:

  • Keep. Islamic fundamentalism in Iran boasts a history spanning centuries. This article primarily focuses on the period following the 1979 revolution, which led to the establishment of Iran's first Islamic state. Integrating this with the main article would result in disproportionate emphasis. The term 'scare word' is unclear; could you elucidate your argument? The term in the title of article refers to the current government's practice of an Islamic state, its official name is also Islamic Republic. Should you have any critiques regarding the title, we can explore alternative designations such as 'Fundamentalism in Post-Revolution Iran.' It is noteworthy that the majority of this article's content is not found in the main article, as it concentrates on the emergence of state-sponsored fundamentalism and its systematic implementation. Regarding the conservative source to which you allude, could you please specify? The sources utilized are balanced, including esteemed historical references such as Britannica." I'm also expanding the article. The work hasn't finished yet. 3000MAX (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you were trying to make an article only covering post-Revolutionary Iran and I apologize for thinking the title was a use of non-neutral language. However, it should be noted that the already-existing article is already almost entirely about post-Revolution Iran. The lead of the main article immediately discusses how "Islamic fundamentalism" in the country is primarily connected with Khomeini, and only discusses pre-Revolution Iran in the "History" section.
I'll refrain from using the term "main article" to refer to Islamic fundamentalism in Iran as I do see now that the two articles discuss completely different topics despite the similar names. The older article is about the religious intellectual movement, and discusses theology and the political relationship between the clergy and the state. This new article is primarily listing certain actions of the state that it justifies via Islam. This shows a deeper issue: this article doesn't really discuss Islamic fundamentalism at all. Islamic fundamentalism is a theological doctrine and should be discussed in an article on theological movements (as it is in Islamic fundamentalism in Iran) and isn't really an applicable term for discussing state media censorship. Notably, none of the sources cited in this article use the term "fundamentalism" anywhere (besides of course the referenced Britannica definition of the term). Since none of the sources cited discuss the actions of the state as "Islamic fundamentalism" it seems this article is almost entirely synthesis trying to connect conservative policies to Islam, rather than just a content fork. Some of the connections to Islam fail to even appear to materialize in the prose: for instance, These ministries regulate university curricula, faculty appointments, and student admissions, ensuring alignment with Islamic values is vague and doesn't explain what part of the education might be Islamic. Enforcement of Persian-language studies has no connection to Islam, which is a famously Arabic-focused religion, and is more in line with discussion of Iranian nationalism.
Also on sources: I took issue with citing to The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which as a political think tank is non-neutral in discussion of Iran.[70][71][72] The Guardian article cited fails verification – there's nothing about ethnolinguistic minorities in that article. Dan • ✉ 05:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Redundancy of title. "Islamic fundamentalism in Islamic Republic of Iran". What other kind of fundamentalism could there be in Iran, except Islamic? — Maile (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 12:49, 8 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 11:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spice rack

Spice rack (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 case of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Spice ranks are useful, in fact we have one. However, that does not make them something which is notable enough to have a page. The first two sources are definition, the third (of three) is a blog that (rightly) suggests that they help to organize a kitchen. I agree, but no need for a page on that here IMHO. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:50, 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. (non-admin closure) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birtara Union

Birtara Union (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)

An article that lacks context for readers and editor. Looking at the article, I can't say whether it's a place or something related to an organisation. Hence, doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, WP:NGEO. I have searched for sources but found none. The one source cited seems not strong to attain WP:GNG as it doesn't pose significant coverage or verifiable ones that say the topic exist and is notable.

Aside from theses, facts needs to be verifiable. I will also need a ping when sources are found.Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Bangladesh. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Keep This article is indeed notable. It is one of union councils of Bangladesh. And I believe there should be some good source for it. We can also see a source about its population in the article. But the thing is the article isn’t in good state. We should send it to draft. If the article creator can improve the article then it can be moved to mainspace. Mehedi Abedin 07:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed that before nominating it for deletion discussion the article was vandalised by a ip. The nominator probably nominated it without realizing that. I restored the article's previous version. Mehedi Abedin 07:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Unnecessarily brought to Afd. It is a union of Bangladesh and its name is found everywhere including search, map, government site and news. Ontor22 (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Just found out it was vandalized. My bad, will do another time! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:40, 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 Speedy Delete G12‎ All versions of the article are a copyright violation. Whpq (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Office of Emergency Management

Philadelphia Office of Emergency Management (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 city-level government agency. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Let's try to make it better before deleting it. The OEM is a relatively new city agency and has had increased prominence recently due to events like the Delaware River chemical spill in 2023 and the 2023 wildfires, and other more localized emergencies. Unbandito (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to improvement but we do need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Philadelphia#Public_safety as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What content do you believe should be merged and where's the secondary source coverage to support it? Because at the moment the only source is a press release from the City of Philadelphia. AusLondonder (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SECONDARY is definitely preferred and is required to establish notability. I am not arguing that this is an independently notable organization. WP:PRIMARY is acceptable for verification of a paragraph in a larger article. I would suggest merging this short article as a new section under Philadelphia#Public_safety. The content can then be improved in place by editors of the Philadelphia article. ~Kvng (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree, I think it's completely undue at the Philadelphia article. Without secondary sources we have no reason to believe this is a noteworthy organisation. I also absolutely oppose inserting irrelevant and unacceptable content at another article with the expectation someone else will "improve" it at some unknown time. AusLondonder (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, you're free to disagree. However, I've proposed an WP:ATD (policy) and your response approaches WP:IDONTLIKEIT (argument to avoid). Your WP:UNDUE argument is also without merit as my proposed subsection would be smaller than the others existing there. ~Kvng (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems you think WP:ATD prohibits actually deleting an article on a non-notable topic under any circumstances, ever. Really struggling to see how what I said is an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT which are arguments to avoid at deletion discussions. I'm raising legitimate sourcing and quality content concerns which you have completely ignored. AusLondonder (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm ignoring article quality issues because WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a reason not to delete an entire article, not to insert new content in another article. I think this time you're really reaching trying to avoid deletion via ATD. AusLondonder (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is nothing suitable to merge.
    Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I buy these arguments but if I did, I think they would argue for a redirect to Philadelphia. That way the contents would be available to Philadelphia editors in the redirect's history. ~Kvng (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Always trying to scratch around for an "alternative" to deleting inappropriate content isn't necessary. Some content simply does not belong on Wikipedia. AusLondonder (talk) 14:19, 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 speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. Complex/Rational 23:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jishnu (Actor)

Jishnu (Actor) (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)

Salt evasion of Jishnu (actor) and Jishnu Raghavan. Article needs to be moved to either of these titles if kept. CycloneYoris talk! 04:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The subject pass WP:NACTOR which says “ The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions” He has worked on numerous films, many of which are notable. Also, he pass WP:GNG as there are multiple reliable secondary sources availble which talks about the subject. It should be moved to Jishnu (actor) .Grabup (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with @User:CNMall41. Grabup (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not agree PUPPYMANG (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Keep this article there are valid reasons to keep this aricle because he has good recognition and fame in film industry, Notable actor, Acted more than 20 films in Malayalam including one Tamil and Hindi film.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
PUPPYMANG (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Example: Janhvi Kapoor article first of all it has been deleted then again deleted and multiple times recreated and redirected. Finally the Particular editor Protected that page into Extended Automated Confirmed user indefinitely due to Persistent Sockpuppetry. So, why can't you do for Jishnu also. PUPPYMANG (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - In addition to this being a clear WP:DUCK and G5, it falls under everything that Wikipedia is NOT. The number of socks and UPE attempting this page is unbelievable. I previously started notifying projects globally of the abuse but looks like that effort needs stepped up as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPI for reference is here. Looks like simultaneous filings since it is a clear DUCK. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I support Delete. Grabup (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is better to give indefinite protection. Other than deletion better protect this Page. PUPPYMANG (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking duplicate vote. Please keep in mind that each participant is only allowed to !vote once. See WP:!vote. CycloneYoris talk! 03:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Actor Jishnu Raghavan dies; celebs offer condolences". www.ibtimes.co.in. 25 March 2023.
  2. ^ "Actor Jishnu Raghavan still an inspiration". ritzmagazine.in. 25 March 2016.
  3. ^ "Karma Games is my tribute to Jishnu: Aadarsh". The Times of India. 11 December 2017.
  4. ^ Bureau, Kerala (27 Mar 2016). "A promising career cut short by cancer". The Hindu.
  5. ^ "Jishnu returns, after the break". timesofindia.indiatimes.com. 3 October 2012.
  6. ^ "Last film of director Rajesh Pillai and actor Jishnu : Hindi version of Traffic got released today". onlookersmedia.in. 6 May 2016.
  7. ^ "Cine world shocked over Jishnu's death". english.mathrubhumi.com. 25 March 2016.
  8. ^ "I used to love housework: Jishnu Raghavan". The Times of India. 24 January 2017.
  9. ^ "It is difficult to believe Jishnu is no more: Raghavan". timesofindia.indiatimes.com. 27 April 2016.
  10. ^ "Jishnu Raghavan Leaves the Stage Mid-show". newindianexpress.com. 27 March 2016.
  11. ^ "Buddies' tribute to warrior pal Jishnu". Deccan Chronicle. 27 March 2016.
  12. ^ "5 memorable faces of Jishnu". www.onmanorama.com. 25 March 2016.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Bulgaria women's international footballers. ✗plicit 05:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsvetana Mancheva

Tsvetana Mancheva (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)

Redirect to List of Bulgaria women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 04:15, 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 05:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Thrissur

List of tallest buildings in Thrissur (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 collection of random buildings in the city and doesn't meet WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. The sources used are either dead or primary, with no SIGCOV in any independent reliable sources justifying the existence of any such list. Except one, none of the buildings listed aren't notable by itself, and hence WP:SALAT is not justified. WP:NOTDIR applies too. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:47, 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. No prejudice against merging, moving, or anything else. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beast poetry

Beast poetry (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)

Completely unsourced barring quotes. No indication of importance. DrowssapSMM 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, and Europe. DrowssapSMM 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in one form or another. It may be the case that Ziolkowski is in fact the first/primary/only scholar to use the term "beast poetry" specifically. However, he seems to be influential in the field. Talking Animals: Medieval Latin Beast Poetry, 750-1150 has 180+ citation in Google Scholar and numerous reviews ([73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]). One option could be to re-frame the article to be about the book. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics cites Ziolkowski in the entry on Beast epic, so if nothing else we could merge there. But I'm inclined to keep given that it seems to be an accepted scholarly genre. Jfire (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or draftify, convinced by Jfire. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a search under “bestiary poetry” or “poetic bestiary” suggests the topic is notable, and one of these terms might serve as an alternative title. Mccapra (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is fo-shizzle notable. It's a matter of reframing the article and creating possible alternate titles. I don't think draftify is warranted here. It can be fixed being on the main space. X (talk) 12:43, 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 no consensus‎. There is consensus to not delete, but a split between keep and merge. This should be hashed out in a talk page merger discussion, not another AfD. Sandstein 20:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlus USA

Atlus USA (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)

Reads like a video game essay, insufficient standalone notability. Only source I found that might have sufficient coverage is the Game Informer one, suggesting merger with Atlus. IgelRM (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. IgelRM (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems quite notable, cites over 77 sources, many of which are secondary. I will note that if language is an issue, just tag it. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could have tagged for style but generally interviews, which are a large part of the sources, don't give sufficient notability. IgelRM (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A fairly in-depth article that explains its significance outside of the parent company; several dozen hits when looking at a cursory Google Books search. I do not see a strong reason to delete. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am assuming you are referring to "notable in its localization approach in preserving as much of the original", but I struggle to find a notable source for that and mentioned Game Informer article doesn't say it. It would help me if you could pick an example book with significant coverage. IgelRM (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutral: I know I'm biased, and if things go another way I'll accept the decision. If style and writing is the issue, then it needs a rewrite. Or maybe trimming down in places like that huge game list. --ProtoDrake (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Biased means article creator here for outsiders) It only makes sense to rewrite if it is notable. The game list seems fine although ideally it should be sourced and maybe spun-out to a separate page. IgelRM (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 03:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Somewhat off-topic but the name in the lead was changed from "USA to "West" (as well as on the Atlus article), which does not appear to an official name. IgelRM (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, concur with others below, fails WP:THREE, see discussion on my talk Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Atlus. After (briefly) looking through the 77 sources and Google Books, I'm simply not seeing significant coverage of Atlus USA in reliable, secondary, independent sources. The article clearly has plenty of sources, but they're all trivial mentions (not significant coverage) or interviews (not secondary or independent), plus a few primary sources from Atlus. A few sources do border on significant coverage of Atlus, the parent company, but not Atlus USA, the subject of this article. The only source that is unequivocally significant coverage of Atlus USA is Game Informer, as mentioned above. Will gladly change my mind if anyone can point to two more sources that actually demonstrate SIGCOV. Woodroar (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Deliberating a possible merge: History section (except staff section, which does not appear notable) to Atlus; Localization approach section (mostly about localizing SMT) to Megami Tensei; Publishing section and third-party list into an additional section on List of Atlus games. IgelRM (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes sense to me! Woodroar (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors are free to merge whatever content they want to other articles but XFDcloser can only handle one Merge target article in closing a discussion. Would that be Atlus? Liz Read! Talk! 17:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, yes; although merging most into Atlus doesn't appear feasible to me, so perhaps redirect to Atlus would be a more accurate AFD close while still preserving for future editors. IgelRM (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Functionally, a merge or redirect is the same result for the topic article. Just a matter of "review for mergeable content first" really. -- ferret (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I've been going back and forth on this one, but Woodroar more or less said where I ended up. The GameInformer is a huge in-depth source, but as I went through the rest, I simply could not find anything else. A few passing mentions in relation to games ("And Atlus USA is translating" and the like), and many of the non-interviews/non-primaries seemed to not mention Atlus USA at all. Calls for the !Keeps to provide at minimum three are unanswered at this time. -- ferret (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm just curious, is there policy/precedent for not spinning out regional branches like this? Nintendo of America for example doesn't have a standalone article even though it seemingly could. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument for or against deletion, I'm just wondering if there was some previous consensus on this. CurlyWi (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think ideally every single article is as comprehensive as possible, so I would need to ask why (maybe because of the section length?) and what a spin-out would improve. IgelRM (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. The article doesn't have enough in-depth sources to exist on it's own, most articles are about the Japanese developer. Swordman97 talk to me 03:42, 5 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! 11:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Seems quite notable per WP:NORG. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind identifying the three best sources demonstrating notability for Atlus USA? Woodroar (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really really want to change my position, but no one has provided a single source other than Game Informer that shows in-depth independnent sigcov. -- ferret (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It currently fails WP:NCORP. I looked at the first block of references in detail and quickly looked at the second block. The first block is mostly made up of profiles with no byline, routine business news, PR and interviews with leading folk in the company, none of which passes WP:SIRS or WP:ORGIND. The second block is just equally as bad. It is completely non-notable. Possible small merge to main article, a sentence or two at most as they're is nothing to support anything bigger. scope_creepTalk 09:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article seems notable, per WP:GNG, but not per WP:NCORP. I searched through articles about the company for about 30 minutes, I found a lot of articles about Sega's acquisition of the company, the parent company's bankruptcy, the CEO retiring, but nothing 'about' the company. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really sorry but, as has been repeatedly requested... can you provide at least three such sources that show independent in-depth coverage of Atlus USA? Your !vote seems to indicate you found information on the parent company but couldn't find any further sources about this company? -- ferret (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. A content fork, the refs are all trivial mentions. Desertarun (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 00:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaşınhan railway station

Kaşınhan railway station (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. Fails WP:BUILDING/WP:NTRAINSTATION, not seeing significant coverage outside of routine non-independent service announcements from Turkish State Railways and passing mentions which confirm this train station exists, but not that it's notable. The only source in the article doesn't even namecheck the subject. Possible redirect target: Konya–Yenice railway. Pilaz (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Pilaz (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why has this specific article been tagged after years? I find these requests very puzzling, as there are numerous articles like this, not just for Turkish railways, but around the world. While editing Turkish railway articles, my goal is to add and bring them up to the standard of American railway articles, hence the article on individual railway stations. If this article will be deleted, does that mean every station in Turkey, except the large one, will follow suite? Of course additions can be made, given time (I work full-time). The history can be added regarding the Baghdad railway, hosting the famous Taurus express along with its rebuilding to accommodate HSTs. In any case, this article should be kept and NOT deleted. Cheers. (Central Data Bank (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
New page patrollers check whether new articles conform to Wikipedia's core content policies. I found this article through the New pages feed, and, despite its age, it was yet to be reviewed. As far as community guidelines go, articles may be deleted if they don't meet the general notability guideline or one of many specific notability guidelines. In this case, a cursory search of sources turned up little to show that this two-platform station is notable, hence why it is brought here for broader community review. Pilaz (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More than likely they will be deleted, unless you can find significant sourcing for each building. We don't have much of anything here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well then as a patroller, please tell me the difference between this article and, for example, Alderson station. Both have more or less the same amount of info provided. I am asking, so I can update Kasinhani station to keep the article. And if we are going to firesale and begin to destroy the whole Turkish railway community on wikipedia, why has Kasinhani been singled out? Why not go on to delete all the others, except the large notable ones? My point being, this seems to be an act of prejudicial(?) selection, not following any consistent form of wider article selection other than singling out a random article and nominating it for deletion. Yes, I am frustrated in this situation, because it is very random, and without logic, unless ALL other similar articles would follow suite. (Not just in Turkey, but all over the world) (Central Data Bank (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
All buildings require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability per WP:NBUILDING. The fact that that article hasn't been nominated doesn't mean it's necessarily notable or abiding by Wikipedia notability guidelines. And no, you article wasn't singled out: railway station articles are routinely brought to AfD, see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puksinhyon station. So, unless anyone can find significant coverage for this building (basically: has anyone ever written about this train station in detail?), this article does not meet our notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything. Pilaz (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless there is some sort of heritage designation for the building, there likely isn't much on it. This is all I could find [79], which is trivial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The pdf you have shared is a great resource for stations in Turkey actually, thank you for finding it. (Central Data Bank (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice to a discussion about all the stations on the line as a group. There is no benefit to the encyclopaedia from singing out random examples from a set of similar articles. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 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! 23:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Coalition for Organ Donation

Youth Coalition for Organ Donation (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)

Organization known for a single effort that didn't succeed. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One failed measure which was enough to garner local, regional, and national news still meets Wikipedia’s notability standards, but in this case, there was an additional, successful piece of legislation passed in partnership with The YCOD.
Meets notability standards. Evanroden1 (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to New Series Adventures. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Well (novel)

Wishing Well (novel) (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 book, fails WP:NBOOK. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus without prejudice against selective merge. Owen× ☎ 16:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Redirect/merge Adds no value to WP as a teeny stub. A trivial uncontested primary of this type can be easily covered in one sentence in the main article. Feels like people create these non-articles purely to check off the redlinks in Template:2024 Republican primaries, but many of those links just need to be a redirect to "<Year> United States presidential election in <state>#Republican caucuses". 2024 Nebraska Republican presidential primary falls into the same category. I'd go as far as to say that being a section in the main <election in state> article should be the default, with caucuses only getting a standalone article when there's some major controversy or it was a bigger/more heavily contested primary. Even minorly contested primaries like 2024 Washington Republican presidential primary (Trump vs. Haley) are really just a results box that could be as easily slotted into the main article and fall under WP:REDUNDANT. Hemmers (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. (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 [80]. 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 [81] [82]. Also there's another sources about the subject [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88]. 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 [89] [90][91]. ---- 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=1220253882"