Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 24: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:07, 24 April 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 23	April 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Sindhuja Rajaraman

AfDs for this article:

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

Ok look, there's been a bunch of back and forth on this article, including the previous nomination being overturned from keep to no consensus. I've done some digging on the subject, and here's my conclusions:

1. This individual has not won a Guinness World Record. This appears to be a miscited claim from them saying they had submitted a world record attempt for "fastest created movie" for creating a 3 minute animated movie in 10 hours. This attempt was not recorded by the Guinness Book of World Records. In the previous nomination, it was commented by several keep voters that the 3rd source in this article is from a reliable source. Given that they have printed this very simply false claim in the second sentence, I propose it be disregarded.

2. From what I can see, this individual's appointment was by her father's friend (described as her mentor) and carried pretty limited scope of responsibilities. This article seems to explain it best - https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/bs-people-sindhuja-rajamaran-111032400058_1.html

3. WP:NEWSORGINDIA was not mentioned in the previous nomination, but I would like to comment that I think it makes this specific claim of notability extra dubious.

No ill will here, she seems like a smart woman making a good way in the world, but this marketing stunt is her *only* source of notability. It seems like it will be very difficult to write an encyclopaedic article about her because the only sources covering her are local puff pieces about how great she is. BrigadierG (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We literally just closed this less than 3 weeks ago. Let it rest for a bit. There is nothing that's changed in a month. Any "untruths" lets call them (as mentioned above), can be removed from the article by edit, not be deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion closed as no consensus which doesn't hold prejudice to renomination. Given that the most recent coverage for this individual is from 7 years ago or so, I don't think much is going to change about their notability status. At best, waiting stirs the voter pool a bit. BrigadierG (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, Comics and animation, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. Oh wow, the youngest person to .... Please. It's very easy when you're a nepo baby. Bearian (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Soft deletion is not an option as it was JUST at a previous AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Last nomination was one month ago. Bring it to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you think the closer made a mistake. And significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Christian75 (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might have missed the note on Last nomination --> Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 6. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 22:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darcy Breen

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT as far as I can tell. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Career never really kicked on to bring extended coverage, so not really enough to pass WP:GNG here. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only 1 game for Waratahs. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 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.

Khalil Rahme

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG. Participation-based SNGs were deprecated in 2022 and BLPs require strong sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC) I am changing my recommendation to a redirect to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads#Lebanon. JTtheOG (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Lebanon, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: World Cup quarter finalist, several references (though more needed), suggesting player has had/having a career in Australia's first and second tier. Article needs expansion. Mn1548 (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Played at the RLWC, nine sources, every line sourced.Fleets (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any WP:SIGCOV? JTtheOG (talk) 22:56, 25 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!} 01:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads#Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above Prodrummer619 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any SIGCOV? JTtheOG (talk) 18:19, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Mamary

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG. Participation-based SNGs were deprecated in 2022 and BLPs require strong sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Lebanon, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Though he his semi pro with international caps, references given don't appear to suggest his career is notable, thus finding refs is unlikely. Mn1548 (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The zealous moves to purge sportspeople whilst other more civilized pursuits skate by with achievement based criteria. Nom fails to explain why deletion is necessary when alternatives exist such as a Redirect to the appropriate section of 2017 Rugby League World Cup squads. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing does not establish notability. Nothing found on Google either. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to have a notable established career in first grade, regardless of international appearances. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of preserved Southern Pacific Railroad rolling stock#Preserved steam locomotives. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Pacific 1298

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

I am unable to find any coverage of this locomotive in secondary sources. The source used for basically the entire article is a self-published website. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and California. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this is not independently notable (I haven't looked for sources) it should be redirected to List of preserved Southern Pacific Railroad rolling stock#Preserved steam locomotives. If verifiable, the information in the article could be used to expand the entry there to a full sentence as that seems DUE based on other entries. I don't see any benefit in deletion over this course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Per nom. 124.148.210.252 (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 22:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Thryduulf. News search found nothing and book search found self-published sources (and a few books with "Southern Pacific" on page 1298). – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 22:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Thryduulf would indeed be the best choice. TH1980 (talk) 02:55, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evangeline Wiles

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

8-year orphaned permastub on a "technology entrepreneur" with a single middling reference. BD2412 T 20:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 20:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Technology, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find press releases saying she's running this panel or other. BrigadierG (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Speaker at xyz event, is about all there is for coverage about this person. One line stub that we can delete. Vaguely PROMO, not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject lacks GNG as most of the sources available online are just press releases, not enough to establish notability. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a single source violates both WP:OR and WP:SIGCOV, thus violates WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christo Joubert

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am having a hard time finding anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Amature player with minimal coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Okulov

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

Non-notable Russian physicist. The article was created by its subject (Okulov99 (talk · contribs)), contains no references or sources confirming the subject's notability (expect of the publication list of the subject). It is basically a promotional page. Ruslik_Zero 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation counts [1] too low to pass WP:PROF#C1. Membership in scientific societies, and working for the Russian academy of sciences, are not the sort of honorary memberships needed to pass WP:PROF#C3. The references appear to alternate between Okulov's own publications, and academic publications about background material that do not mention or cite Okulov; a rare exception is reference [2], which actually does cite a paper by Okulov, in passing. None of these references contribute to notability nor provide the material to properly source an encyclopedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. No indication that he is close to any of the notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how any of his research was anything other than secondary. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NPROF as yet. X (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As just stated, does not yet meet WP:NPROF. This page is a few years too early in this subject's career. WP:TOOSOON. Qflib (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. SNOW. And, to the IP editor, a "soft delete" is not possible if there is a single Keep vote and the discussion is unanimously Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Harmony (TV series)

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

Fails WP:GNG as it lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet it. Agusmagni (talk | contributions) 17:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and United States of America. Agusmagni Agusmagni Agusmagni 19:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:COMMONOUTCOMES; primetime series on American broadcast networks are generally kept, and even removing the week-to-week ratings sources it more than passes GNG. Nominator attempted to nominate Tom Swift and that was also kept. Nate • (chatter) 20:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, implausible that a network television series that ran for a full season across two calendar years would not have sufficient coverage to be found. BD2412 T 20:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found plenty of in depth coverage - eg https://variety.com/2019/tv/reviews/perfect-harmony-nbc-review-bradley-whitford-1203347611/ BrigadierG (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should soft delete this page 2800:810:498:E74:8500:1E10:DDC3:636E (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please state a proper rationale for deletion; 'soft deletion' would be a nomination with no votes for two weeks, which is not a possible result here. Nate • (chatter) 18:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nominator does not understand how Wikipedia works, and runs a WP:Single-purpose account to fruitlessly nominate various TV series. Geschichte (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Quick WP:BEFORE finds multiple reliable sources discussing the show Shazback (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: these nominations are clearly nonsense. Toughpigs (talk) 23:04, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Meyer

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Amature player with minimal coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alekh Kumar Parida

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. The sources are paid press - no reliable or significant sources. Additionally, this subject does not indicate any significance to have an article on Wikipedia. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 19:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 19:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Subject passes the WP:GNG very easily, look at the newly published source also, [2] Abualsarmad (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Mostly all articles in Hindi-language, it passes Guidelines for Notability as much as I understood those. TheChronikler7 (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is Notable musical artist and actor, found these sources when searched on the Engine, check [3]. TyagiZakirAli (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject passes WP:BASIC very easily. Historical Heritages of Bihar (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs an assessment of the reliability of the proposed sources; see Paid news in India.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable and seems like there are good sources that could be added Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources indicate that he passes notability, the article needs work though InDimensional (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What are the best WP:THREE here? And also the !vote somewhere above me was posted by a blocked user (Me_Da_Wikipedian). Roxy177 (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The recent article on India.com [4] is reliable and independent enough to prove the notability guidelines. Zarahassan9992 (talk) 14:19, 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 merge‎ to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps. Sandstein 20:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. 677 (Suffolk and Norfolk Yeomanry) Squadron AAC

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

In my opinion, the article is not notable. Only one reference is listed and it is not independent of the topic of the article. In the case of this article, the squadron is company-sized. PercyPigUK (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Aviation squadrons normally warrant their own articles. Predecessor units were larger: Norfolk Yeomanry and Suffolk Yeomanry have their own articles. And sources do not have to be independent of the topic of an article,. We don't need to write articles on football from sources on cricket. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary or tertiary sources determine notability (WP:PSTS) so if they are not included in the article, notability cannot be proven. This article is about an army squadron (company-sized) instead of an RAF squadron (battalion-sized). PercyPigUK (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement for the secondary or tertiary sources that establish notability to actually be used in an article. Notability is proven by their existence, not their presence. WP:BEFORE: If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps, the information on the regiment article is virtually the same as what is in the article. Gavbadger (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ashby

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Of the current sources, the first was written by the subject himself, and the second is a brief mention quoted from a press release. A BEFORE check revealed some quotes and namedrops but little else. Let'srun (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Finance, Law, and Politics. Let'srun (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no claim to notability. TJRC (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG as none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:MILL, and my own standards for lawyers. Yes he's been mentioned in two news articles, but that's not significant coverage. Many, perhaps thousands, of lawyers are involved in politics. He doesn't pass my standards for lawyers by a stretch. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 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.

Robert McGee

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

I'm usually sympathetic to pages on perpetual students but I couldn't find enough reliable sources for this person besides that he got a bunch of degrees and is a professor. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sportspeople, Martial arts, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Interesting human interest story and I'm amazed he hasn't been featured in NPR or something... I don't see anything we'd use, no news coverage, nothing, for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than mentions of his degrees and being a professor, I cannot find anything to convince GNG.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Independent sigcov appears in the Fayetteville Observer (more, book review) and Miami Herald (cont., later). His Google Scholar may suggest an NPROF pass too but I don't know the field well enough. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think the multiple sources with SIGCOV provided by Hameltion are enough for a GNG pass. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per GNG and per WP:NPROF#1 based on his GS profile, he seems to be highly cited for his field in ethics/philosophy. Also there is enough evidence for a GNG pass.--hroest 07:37, 1 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) 19:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the case for WP:PROF#C1 we also have a case for WP:AUTHOR through multiple published reviews of his books [5] [6] [7] [8]. Each case is borderline but I think together they're enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy self-citation makes WP:PROF#C1 unusable. The subject overwhelmingly cites himself, never seen this before. See my comment below. Lekkha Moun (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Easily searchable on google and has a myriad of academic articles. BlackAmerican (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that this article was previously AFD'd under another name. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert W. McGee BlackAmerican (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am considering this article strongly in favour of deletion. In 2022, the article was deleted (AFD#1 Robert W. McGee) and recreated under Robert McGee. The AFD#1 Robert W. McGee is a very interesting read where the subject joined in, seemingly WP:BLUDGEONING in order to justify his article. In terms of martial arts, he has accomplishments to be proud of but nothing to show WP notability, his martial arts championships are in senior age (limited participant divisions). Unverified claims such as "1020 medals" looks like Self promotion/vanity page. I also have a huge problem almost all the citations in the article. Citations such as "AT 72, ROBERT W. MCGEE IS JUST GETTING STARTED" published by Union Institute & University where the subject earned his PHD is absolutely non-independent and unreliable. As another user mentioned, (and I verified) if you look up the work of the subject called “The ethics of tax evasion: Perspectives in theory and practice” the majority of the citations in this work are self-citations from the subject other work. Another of his work “Why people evade taxes in Armenia: A look at an ethical issue based on a summary of interviews”, we noticed self-citation rate of around 80%. Most of the sources are from his own works/self-published. It’s quite concerning. Heavy self-citation technically makes citations WP:PROF#C1 unusable. Lekkha Moun (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that reduces the case for #C1 notability, but your rant about how all of the other stuff he did is uninteresting does nothing to address the case for WP:AUTHOR notability, and the multiple published reviews by other people of his books. Let me spell that out: we have multiple in-depth sources about his work, independent of that work and reliably published. That also passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe article would need an entire rewrite if we base the notability off this criteria (WP:AUTHOR), as barely one sentence mentions his authorship. As for the reviews you mentioned, as you said, I find them borderline and not very compelling. I may be wrong, but I'm not at all convinced of the subject's notability as an author based on WP:AUTHOR, but I would be happy to change my vote if more info is brought forward to strengthen the case for WP:AUTHOR. Edit: I noticed your "Delete" vote on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert W. McGee. I still see evident self promotion as you mentioned and I still don't see great coverage to meet GNG. I am wondering what made you change your mind? Lekkha Moun (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, I didn't find the books and their reviews during the previous AfD. So now I have new evidence for notability that I didn't have earlier. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors are still split between keeping and deleting...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article poorly describes his notability under WP:AUTHOR at present, and does need a significant rewrite to the Career section. But David Eppstein has convinced me that he does indeed meet that criterion. Qflib (talk) 18:11, 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.

As a Soft Deletion, this article could be restored if this absent chessplayer ever pops back up on the competitive chess radar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Schulman (chess player)

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG. The sources in the article are all databases, and a WP:BEFORE check only comes up with passing mentions such as [[9]]. Let'srun (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Games, Law, and Canada. Let'srun (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes. Not voting one way or the other at this stage, just noting that he represented a large country (Canada) at chess, and most of his activity was in the 1960s where sources are not so easy to find on the internet. He played in 3 Canadian Championships. His Elo rating on the first FIDE list in 1970 was 2260, and it seems he didn't play any rated games after that. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several mentions of him in the Chess Life/ Chess Review archives at the USCF site (https://new.uschess.org/chess-life-digital-archives), usually in connection with either the Canadian championship or the annual Minnesota vs Manitoba match (he was one of the top players from Winnipeg). I haven't found any 1960s Canadian chess publications digitized on-line. Still, he satisfies two of the informal WP:NCHESS criteria, having played in 3 Canadian championships (1963, 1965, 1969) and represented Canada at the Olympiad. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete. I wanted to keep it, I really did, but in the end I couldn't justify it to myself. It's true that there are probably a lot of off-line sources from the 1960s, but he just doesn't really have enough achievements to get more than a few passing mentions in specialist chess publications. We haven't even confirmed a date of birth or death (chesstempo says he was born in 1934 but no better source found; a memorial tournament named after him was held in 2018). Playing in 3 Canadian championship (https://www.bcchesshistory.com/canchslate.html) and 1 Olympiad (https://www.olimpbase.org/players-ind/2/28e2amqe.html) doesn't really add up to notability since Canada has never been a major chess playing power, and his achievements in these events was a little underwhelming. His published FIDE rating of 2260, while not to be sneezed at, suggests that he was of below International Master strength. It appears he was strictly an amateur, a lawyer who only occasionally found the time to play competitively. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCHESS doesn't mention playing in a national championship, it mentions winning a national championship. And it doesn't mention playing in the Olympiad, it mentions earning a ... medal at an Olympiad. So, I don't think we can rescue this article. That said, I enjoyed learning these little tidbits about a Canadian chess player whom I had not otherwise heard of. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted elsewhere I found a DOB for him in the Chess Federation of Canada's 100th anniversary booklet by Daniel Yanofsky. I'll note here that he disappeared from the FIDE rating list on the January 2008 list, after being present in the October 2007 list, indicating a likely death in 2007. I've found references to a Winnipeg lawyer who is probably this person, but no obituary (he has a namesake from Maryland who also died in 2007, and another namesake who was P!nk's drummer). The lack of an online obituary does not bode well for notability. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:56, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Song Haus Music

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

This article on a USA-based record label, created in 2010, is unreferenced. Per WP:Before no sigcov found including in searches in both the wikipedia library and standard search engine, except a passing mention in Billboard ([10]). Subject fails to meet notability guidelines. As there aren't guidelines in place for record labels - I expect WP:NORG applies. ResonantDis_tortion 16:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, and United States of America. ResonantDis_tortion 16:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This company shares a warehouse with two other record labels: Metallic Blue Records and Rewind Records. [11] StonyBrook _babble 22:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 20:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Maurice

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

Not a relevant subject for an article. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Current consensus states that crypto-centric sources don't count towards notability. Furthermore the creator (and only major contributor to this article) appears to have a conflict of interest since he has exclusively edited articles related to Chris Maurice or his company. Samoht27 (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are articles published in Forbes, Business Insider and African newspapers. That makes him eligible according to Wikipedia. Jeersks (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC) — Jeersks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per WP:RS. As stated by Samoht27, crypto sources don't count, period. Many of the sources are just marketing or college-alumni puff pieces, and thus don't count. Forbes used to be good, but has become deprecated, and so that doesn't count either. Interviews in a newspaper don't count. In 2007, arguments that these constitute significant coverage could be made, but not in 2024. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 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 speedy delete‎. This could well be regarded as suitable for deletion under speedy deletion criterion G4 (re-creation of a page previously deleted as the outcome of a deletion discussion), but it unambiguously qualifies under criterion G11 (advertising or promotion). JBW (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge India

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:NGO. Can't find any reliable or independent sources. Page was previously deleted as well. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 18:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 18:01, 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 keep‎. Sandstein 20:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Famille

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

Fails WP:GNG as it lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet it. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 17:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ivory Coast. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: While the article is insufficient currently, there is definitely notability, with several reliable sources in French: Le Monde, Le Point, analysis article on JSTOR, TV5Monde, rfi, La Libre Afrique, Jeune Afrique... and others which are perhaps less reliable / reputable Africine, IvoireBusiness, L'Infodrome, Pulse.ci, LeFaso, MediaCongo, AllAfrica. As someone with limited knowledge of African TV, I'm sure there are other, better sources, but this is really just from the first few pages of Google Search results. Shazback (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Shazback above. Orange sticker (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to Shazback's sources. The JSTOR result seems especially strong. Toughpigs (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. SNOW Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian names of primate families

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

Violates WP:DICDEF. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [T/C] 17:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Animal, Lists, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way out of scope. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and violation of WP:DICDEF. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with most of the exonym lists! —Tamfang (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ummm... This is pretty much WP:DICT. Don't think this is comparable to the exonym lists, though. Aintabli (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates everything, actually. Utterly non-encyclopedic. Geschichte (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in 2024, everybody knows we are not a directory. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick Nwabufo

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

WP:MILL journalist, non-notable. Broc (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Nigeria. Broc (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fredrick Nwabufo is Nigerian Journalist who have constantly conversed for good governance, improved security and commenting on national issues using journalism as well being a columnist on major National newspaper in Nigeria as a tool to disseminate his constant call for good governance and Patriotism. He is also currently the Senior Special Assistant to President Bola Tinubu on Public engagement where he is saddled with the responsibility of interfacing between the government and the Nigerian public.

I believe this article deserve a place on Wikipedia.

Thanks. AromeArome (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AromeArome How does this meet WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NPOL? Broc (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have had a reasonable amount of coverage to meet WP:GNG. He's also a senior advisor to the Nigerian president, so not really fair to call him a "run of the mill" journalist. Article needs NPOV cleanup, though. AusLondonder (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with what AusLondoner said above. Does need to be better when it comes to NPOV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Reel Award for Best Breakthrough Performance

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

My PROD tag was removed, so here we are. This is an older duplicate of Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance. As this award was divided into two categories from 2014 to 2023, the article is also partly a duplicate of Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance, Male and Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance, Female. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Film, and Awards. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect (and merge, if necessary) to Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance seems quite uncontroversial (as the edit summary of the person who dpD the page stated, if I remember well). I had thought about it and deproDd it before reverting myself but on second second thoughts, redirects are cheap. I don't even think an Afd was necessary but thanks for taking the trouble.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep then merge Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance, Male and Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance, Female into Black Reel Award for Best Breakthrough Performance. If we delete Black Reel Award for Best Breakthrough Performance we lose the 2003 through 2013 awards which were not divided by gender. ~Kvng (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2003 to 2013 awards are already covered in Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance. The article here is practically an older copy of that, hence the nomination. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance per WP:CHEAP and numerous incoming links and attribution purposes. Sorry I misunderstood the proposal and am casting a new !vote here. ~Kvng (talk) 22:36, 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.

Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (denomination)

AfDs for this article:

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

Micro-denomination of three churches with no reliable sources to establish notability via significant coverage. All existing sources fail to establish notability:

Link - Primary Source
Link - Appears to be a reliable source with coverage on page 15, but note on page 2 that the author of the coverage on page 15 is/was a senior leader within the subject of the article and thus this source is not independent.
Link. Self-published source of questionable reliability, not updated for a decade.
Link Primary source
Link - Erroneously cited and fails verification. The citation describes as "Doctrines of the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church"; the actual title of the paper is different.
Link - Fails verification for notability; does not reference subject.
Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
Link - Primary source
Link - Primary source
Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages. Fails verification for notability.
Link - Primary source

Editors arguing for "Keep" in the 2022 non-consensus AfD discussion depended heavily on 2 and 5; however, as I've shown here, 2 is not an independent source for notability, and 5 fails verification. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 24 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) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. The sources are either a walled garden type or passing mentions in directories. This is yet another non-notable splinter Calvinist group. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. As this is a 2nd nomination, would prefer a more explicit consensus to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:23, 15 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. Daniel (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States

AfDs for this article:

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

Defunct micro-denomination that existed for less than 10 years. It is not included in any of the authoritative encyclopedic sources (e.g. Melton). Can find no sources to establish notability under GNG or NORG. Existing sources in the article are unreliable or unverifiable. My analysis follows:

Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages
Link - Primary source
Banner of Truth magazine. This magazine is not available online (see here) and thus this citation is unverifiable.
British Church Newspaper. Likewise unavailable online and thus unverifiable.
Link - Primary source
Link - Discussion board; user-generated content.
Link - Primary source
Link - Primary source
Link - Primary source
Link - Self-published primary source

During the 2006 AfD, which resulted in no consensus, those arguing for "keep" tended not to make policy-based arguments. Additionally, they specifically pointed to the British Church Newspaper and Banner of Truth Magazine citations as proving notability. After 18 years, however, these publications remain unavailable online (including in the Internet Archive) and thus cannot be verified. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Invalid reasoning. A source that is not online remains verifiable by a trip to a library. Dead-tree sources are perfectly legitimate. And a denomination being defunct really doesn't matter. If it was notable once, it remains notabvle. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the 2006 discussion, this is the full text in one of the dead-tree sources: "On January 13-14, 2006, a new Presbyterian denomination was formed. During delegate meetings in Philadelphia, PA, the body adopted the name Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (WPCUS). The founding churches came together because of perceived equivocation towards important biblical doctines and because of tolerance of excesses in contemporary worship in other Presbyterian denominations." Sounds like WP:TRIVIALMENTION to me. I've made every effort to verify its existence; however, the comprehensive Banner of Truth magazine archive does not include this citation (see page 99, where no such article is referenced in the April 2006 issue). The WP:BURDEN is on the editor who added the material to add a verifiable, reliable source, and this isn't. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 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) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. The sources are either a walled garden type or passing mentions in directories. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This new denomination was an admin action by 7 churches. They changed their name and 10-15 years later changed it again. The refs don't stack up to notability. Desertarun (talk) 08:02, 15 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 06:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Haupt

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG. Technically meets the requirements at WP:NTENNIS through his wildcard in a local tournament but has no accomplishments as a tennis player that indicate notability. Adamtt9 (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify it again Hildreth gazzard (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as it is WP:TOOSOON for an article. Not much WP:SIGCOV to be found at the moment. JTtheOG (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - WP:TOOSOON applies and currently fails WP:GNG--Wolbo (talk) 11:20, 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. Sandstein 19:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of soccer clubs in the Marshall Islands

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

The page has a single source, and none of these are legitimate clubs. They are only teams that happened to be registered with that name, and seemingly never operated at any capacity outside of amateur tournaments that took place years ago. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete look like a WP:HOAX. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say hoax- there are supporting sources at RSSSF, this is just not notable at all. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I was mistaken. I thought that when you said "legitimate clubs" that you meant they didn't actually exist. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and Oceania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, these teams aren't hoaxes, but this sounds more equivalent to your local softball league sponsored by taverns and breweries in the United States more than a group of even semi-pro teams and they're there for fun, not glory. Nate • (chatter) 20:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Or redirect to Football in the Marshall Islands. Football is completely incipient there, just like Niue, FS Micronesia or Palau. Svartner (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would consider this as village club teams that do not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, While these clubs do exist, they are too insignificant for coverage. Samoht27 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football in the Marshall Islands as possible search term. Giant Snowman 18:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable about this list. Looks like a list of friendlys. Ajf773 (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 19:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Reth

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

Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR or WP:NSPORT, all film roles appear to have been minor roles so far. He's been in teams of several performers at the openings of national sports events, but this doesn't bring him over the line for WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Couldn't find any significant secondary coverage of him in English or Khmer, just passing mentions and social media. Declined three times at draft. Wikishovel (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Cambodia and Sportspeople. Wikishovel (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello sir Tiger Reth he is an actor, martial artist he play his role around more than 10 film the international film has 2 ( First they kill my father and jailbreak ) and now he is filming upcoming international film in cambodia( Phnom Penh Ground Zero ), You can check film list in tiger reth page wikipedia.

Thank You. Songha Mao (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Songha_Mao (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Papaursa (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no indication of WP notability. He has no major acting roles that would meet WP:NACTOR, no martial arts accomplishments that would meet WP:MANOTE, and lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Database entries, passing mentions, and being part of large performances at Cambodian athletic events (although not a competitor), fail to show significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 01:30, 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 no consensus‎. There was no discussion of the sources provided during the discussions, the delete rationales are not paritcularly strong, and there were a couple of merge suggestions. A merge discussion can be handled on the talk page. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ClanLib

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

Nothing in the article suggests this meets WP:NSOFT/WP:GNG, and my BEFORE did not find anything useful (WP:SIGCOV-compliant). Can anyone save this? Otherwise we can consider a redirect target, perhaps? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Piotrus:, are you asserting that what the article purports to be full chapters in two different game programming books doesn't amount to SIGCOV? I don't have access to or know these sources, so maybe you know something not obvious from the description here. ~ A412 ^talk! 08:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A412 I did not realize the second one is a book (dead link, all refs are malformatted and don't suggest they are books). The third one does link to a book page but I could not verify the contents (it is just publisher page). I also remain unconvinced that coverage in how-to/textbooks is sufficient to prove something is notable, unless those books are widely used. There is a lot of low quality spammy how-to/textbooks in the computer sciences field, particularly now in the AI days (although those works are likely old enough to at least not be AI creations). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Game Programming with Python, Lua, and Ruby" does indeed have a chapter on it, although I can't access the full text, unsure about the other one. There seems to be some decent sources in Google Books and some in Scholar. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StreetcarEnjoyer Is the publisher (Premier Press)? Their website suggests they do print-on-demand stuff, so self-publishing. See [12] or Our work helps you achieve your marketing goals.. Assuming this is the right company, this one does a lot of non-book gadget printing?? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, Amazon lists pub as Course Technology PTR, a subsiduary of Cengage Group. Course Technology PTR has Premier Press as an imprint. While I'm fairly confident who the publisher is, I can't say whether or not there's editorial control. @Piotrus I suspect you have an unrelated Premier Press website there, by the looks of it they're not in educational publishing. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some stuff I found if you'd like to look at it and decide upon its reliability. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment: List of games built with ClanLib: https://web.archive.org/web/20060626025824/http://www.clanlib.org/games.html - all of them seems to be hobby projects or even learning projects. I doubt that any of that on it's own would have Wikipedia article. Quickly looking at the list I do not see anything commercial or noteworthy. Pbm (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:09, 17 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, Shadow311 (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I would personally delete it. Looking for useful game engines and this page wasted my time. 24.113.50.192 (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the website perhaps from its entry on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_game_engines since that's how I ended up here. 24.113.50.192 (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTUSEFUL. The article "wasting your time" is irrelevant to the deletion discussion. What matters is if the books that discuss the subject are independent and contain WP:SIGCOV. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just some thoughts. I remember ClanLib. Back in the day, it was a 'big thing' for GNU/Linux users. At the time, Pingus was one of its showcase projects. Eventually, late 2007, Pingus switched to SDL. But early on, both gained popularity as SEUL(-supported) projects. Pingus still has its website there, and starting 19 July 2003 ClanLib was hosted there. I agree that ClanLib is not - or, no longer - notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia, but perhaps it could get a single sentence at Video games and Linux § 1998–2002. Then the ClanLib article could redirect there. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Cody Fry. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flying (Cody Fry album)

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

Non-notable album. The song in it, "I hear a symphony", may be notable, but is already covered in the author's page (Cody Fry). Broc (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Broc (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cody Fry: found zero evidence of notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Flying" and "Better" are also notable songs on this album. His live performance of "Better" has 2.3M views on YouTube and "Flying" has 1M views. Most of the tracks on this album are Cody Fry's more popular songs. Billybob2002 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't mean that the album has to have its own page. The songs could still be covered in the Cody Fry article. Geschichte (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~Keep~~ merge: Beyond the success of individual songs on the album, I've found at least a handful of news stories on the album. It's marginally notable, but notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti could you provide some links? Broc (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Sorry for not including them initially! Atwood Magazine was the initial source that gave me optimism about a keep, but looking at the other sources, they're all campus newspapers. A bummer, but now I'm more keen on a merge to redirect. Thanks for following up. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I had also found the Atwood magazine one, but interviews do not contribute to notability. Broc (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti The sources I added and yours does not make you think of keeping this article? The sources I added are non-campus newspapers/sources. Billybob2002 (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Billybob2002 thanks for adding the sources, but interviews do not contribute to the notability of an album. Broc (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is the proposal to Redirect or Merge to Cody Fry as a target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Merge to Cody Fry. Sorry for not making that abundantly obvious in my initial !vote change. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:59, 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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 03:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Findlay Warriors

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

No evidence of notability, no indepth references about the team, apparently unknown whether they even played a full season, and claims about becoming the Dayton Jets unsourced and unverifiable[19]. Fram (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Ice hockey, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references to the page. The claim of them becoming the Dayton Jets comes from the main page Continental Hockey League (1972–1986) though where that was sourced from, or if its even accurate, I don't know.PensRule11385 (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: The added references don't support the notability of the subject, and it is very hard even to argue in favor of notability if there aren't even sources verifying the team's record. This should be redirected to the main Continental league article. Ravenswing 12:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - team record was in the Decatur paper. Received decent amount of coverage in it. I’ve looked at it before, but can’t now as newspapers.com is temporarily inaccessible through the Wikipedia Library. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 22:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to shift my view to keeping if actual sources providing significant coverage are cited. Ravenswing 18:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While newspapers.com brings up many fairly WP:Routine mentions: ([20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]), I think it is worth noting that these are all out of town newspapers, and unlikely to report anything in depth on a one year team that was a bottom dweller of the league. I am unable to find a good archive of The Courier (Findlay), which leads me to believe that WP:SIGCOV is likely to exist, but is not easily accessible. But obviously, that assertion on its own doesn't hold much weight, and I'm not willing to definitively say it does. IceBergYYC (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I'm WP:AGF here and following the assessment of the people who say they're subject matter specialists - not that there's anybody contradicting them or asking to keep the article. Sandstein 19:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nanotech metallurgy

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

This page is a reinvention under a different name of established metallurgy and materials science by a scientist at UCLA in 2018. Well before nanotechnology became a buzzword, metallurgists and material scientists were using structure at the nano size scale (mainly) deliberately in commercial materials, for instance steels and more recently superalloys. There is nothing in this article which is not already covered better elsewhere, both within Wikipedia and outside. Beyond this the article also has structural problems with much of it a list that is not expanded upon, and many parts are written as WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:OR, although I think much (most?) of what is here is already established science. Neither Wikipedia nor scientists should be reinventing the wheel. (Yup, this page does annoy me!) Ldm1954 (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: after I posted the AfD I realized that the editor who wrote the article is also the one who invented the name, so I have added a WP:COI to the list of issues with this page. For reference, he does not appear to have made any other contributions to Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a lot of sympathy with the nominator here. A google search turned up a phenomenal number of hits for the term "Nanotech metallurgy" but they all seem to have very close links to MetaLi, a company owned by Xiaochun Li, whose name also bears an uncanny relationship to that of the creator of the article. I can't help but feel that the vast majority of the many sources available to support this article are actually direct or indirect-but-close products of Li, and the whole thing is extremely promotional, reeking of blowing one's own trumpet. This is not the place for autotrumpetery. We need evidence that a decent body of people other than Li are using exactly this term, or the article should be deleted. It isn't enough to find metallurgical publications that happen to mention nanotechnology. A glazier can use a screwdriver but screwdriver-driven-glazing doesn't automatically become a notable term. Elemimele (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment, looks a bit like SYNTH, but I'm not an expert in either nanotechnology or metallurgy so can't really assess it. Artem.G (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well I am a scientist and this is a mashup of nanotech and metallurgy that has no basis in common usage that I know of. This article has been through AFC and was created in good faith, however I'm not interested in a COI editor (a university professor and his company) trying to create a new scientific discipline. I checked refs, the COI editor, and googled - the nom has got this bang on. Desertarun (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your analysis, I am also a scientist and this is part of my area which is why I nominated it. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:24, 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 keep‎. Discussion about splitting may continue on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 23:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of figure skaters

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

Grossly out-of-date and incomplete. Even if the list WERE complete AND up-to-date, there is no lead section, no cited sources, AND no explanation why this list is encyclopedically notable. In the current form, it will never meet the requirements of a quality list article on Wikipedia. I also don't really get the purpose of this article. For searching figure skaters, we have the category "figure skaters", which has the big advantage that newly-created biographies are automatically added there. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Lists. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a valid navigational list. A clearly defined list of bluelinks selected by an obvious important characteristic of the subjects. Fram (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid list that is in need of an update. However, AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Frank Anchor 15:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sure it needs work to update, but other sports have similar lists; i.e., Lists of tennis players, List of current AFC team rosters. Some are sourced, some aren't (i.e., List of female American football players). Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This nomination is nonsense. It tries to justify deletion by pointing out ways that the article could be improved, which assumes that the article should be kept in the first place. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid navigational list created on Jul 4th, 2008. It would be more useful if all the names were in columns, with columns available to show more information about them. Dream Focus 02:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished adding sortable columns. Dream Focus 02:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comment Someone can close this AFD as it has received no other delete votes and the article can be salvaged. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List is valid and may require updating and addition of other entries. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We don't need a complete list of every figure skater ever in one article. ON the topic of other articles, WP:OSE applies, but also Lists of tennis players is links to lots of different sub-articles with specific criteria, List of current AFC team rosters and List of female American football players has sufficiently few people that an encyclopedic article with text could be created. Listing thousands of figure skaters in one article would make a ridiculously long article, which isn't needed. Splitting by winning significant events e.g. world/continental championships would be sensible, but this article is and always will be a directory violation. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split Too large to justify a single list. PetScan counts 4825 articles within the Category:Figure skaters tree, which are almost all biographies. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on this article, and we can easily split it into 1) men’s singles, 2) women’s singles, 3) pairs, and 4) ice dance; with this article left as a disambiguating page. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:46, 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. Sandstein 19:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British School of Brasília

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

Article created by a clear WP:COI editor and fails WP:GNG, and WP:NSCHOOL. Redirect to British Schools foundation may be on the cards, but that article has notability concerns as well. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Doesn't have relevance or significant coverage. Svartner (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:55, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stoyan Todorov

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

Does not meet the notability standards in WP:NSPORT. In addition, no non-trivial sources are provided, and I could not find any. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - found nothing better than Gong 1 and Gong 2 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 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.

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings

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

Not every bit of LOTR minutiae needs to be recorded here, fails WP:LISTN as a subject that hasn't received significant attention as a group, No idea why "Elrond's library", a French shop, is in the lead singled out as a source for this either. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Language, Literature, and Lists. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is certainly not "minutiae", but a remarkable indication of the novel's importance. The source you mention is really just a footnote or aside, it has no special importance. If editors really don't want a stand-alone list, then of course we can merge it back to Translating The Lord of the Rings, but that seems quite extreme to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure a list is more of an indication of importance than a summary thereof would be (e.g. "It has been translated into X languages as of year Y"). TompaDompa (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a far better substantiated indication; and of course it allows readers to check for themselves in whichever language they may happen to be interested. I may note that this list has existed in some form since 2008: it has been edited by many hands. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But the fact that the article The Lord of the Rings lists links to 113 translations. The figure of 113 is already a "remarkable indication of the novel's importance". Anyone interested in these translations can find all that they want to know by following the appropriate links. So my recommendation would be delete. Athel cb (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You assume that there is another complete list that readers can refer to. There is not. This is the only complete listing on the internet and it is incomparably useful for collectors. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of those articles that has no better home. Wikipedia provides for list articles, and this one satisfies the conditions. Indeed, this provision seems to explicitly rationalize lists like this one: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion. I read Wikipedia’s acceptance of lists to be quite broad, since the guidelines discuss such acceptable topics as lists of plants in some obscure taxa, lists of words, and so forth, and explicitly states that the individual list elements need not be notable. The reason Wikipedia is the best home for this material is that a scholarly source would not be up-to-date, while copying from them could be copyright violation, since it would be significant content copied in its entirety. Meanwhile, fan sites regularly go belly-up, leaving a gap in cataloging important literature. The list notability guidelines provide for this kind of list: The remarkable diversity of translations has been noted in scholarly circles many times (these references are needed in the article, such as from List_of_translations_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings). Given the precedence and guidelines on Wikipedia, I do not see this article as being a candidate for deletion — certainly not until lists of less general interest get cleaned out and the guidelines get tightened to exclude, rather than include, this kind of list. Strebe (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The fact that a novel was translated to over 57 languages should automatically make a list like this notable- that is amazing in itself. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NLIST. While being translated into 57 different languages is certainly impressive, how impressive something is isn't a valid inclusion criteria for lists. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Insect: That may be so, but WP:NLIST is fulfilled based on other criteria (see above and below). Daranios (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fulfills WP:NLIST as evidenced in the notability of Translating The Lord of the Rings and the sources listed there, as well as further secondary sources like Translating and Transmediating Children’s Literature. So I see no policy-based reason for deletion. The effort of writing the list has already been done, so we don't have to worry about if such efforts would be better spent elsewhere. So I also do not see any benefit for the user of Wikipedia in deleting this article. Daranios (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the arguments raised below, a merge back to Translating The Lord of the Rings based on WP:PAGEDECIDE is also fine with me. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fulfills WP:NLIST as noted in other responses. This article is extremely useful for collectors, especially since Elrond's Library is no longer an actively-maintained source. (For example, I learned of the new Belarusian translation here and was able to add it to my collection.) This list has been continuously expanded since that list ceased its run about a decade ago. Items such as the recent additions of the new Slovenian translation, the new Mongolian translation, the new Belarusian translation, the expansion of the Sinhala translation, etc. are examples of recent edits and the usefulness of this list beyond where Elrond's Library left off. This is the only list of its kind on the internet. It is cited in other internet compilations such as here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL. The usefulness of an article is not a criteria for inclusion via WP:NLIST. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If usefulness isn't a positive criterion for a Wikipedia list, then what is the purpose of Wikipedia in the first place? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't seem like this passes WP:NLIST. We have only 1 good source for this, and there doesn't seem to be anything special about Lord of the Rings translations specifically. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only complete list that there is and other lists actually refer to this one. If you want collectors' sites with partial lists referenced (to get around your comment about "only 1 good source"), those can be added without any real fanfare. But this is an invaluable list for collectors (and there are many of us), that's why we keep it up to date. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude when I say this, but you clearly didn't read WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:What Wikipedia is not. ~~Additionally, this list should NOT contain information found nowhere else per WP:OR~~. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that this list didn't contain information found nowhere else, I said that this is the only complete list. Other lists are partial. This is the only list that contains all the information in one place. And I don't really care about what some WP philosopher wrote in "WP:ITSUSEFUL" because I reiterate my question, "If Wikipedia isn't useful, then why does it exist in the first place?" --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constant wikilawyering over some article or other is one of the biggest criticisms of Wikipedia as a real tool and repository of information. This list is clearly useful to members of the LOTR community, but someone running a bot (who would never have read it in the first place) found it and is now indiscriminately wanting to take a weed whacker to it. It is cases like this where WP:AGF doesn't really apply. If it were a case of "Kiev" versus "Kyiv", that's a useful discussion (I spent a decade involved). But trying to get rid of a useful consolidation of information seems to be a waste of editors' time. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is, obviously, supposed to be useful. However, usefulness is not a reason for inclusion. We are an encyclopedia, not just a collection of things which are useful (besides, what is and isn't useful is an extremely subjective argument). Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL wasn't written by "some WP philosopher", it's one of our most popular essays which is still being modified by editors to this day. And what do you mean AGF doesn't apply here? You don't assume malice behind someone's intentions just because they disagree with you! Industrial Insect (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But discussing about inclusion based on WP:ITSUSEFUL is kind of a theoretical discussion, when the main claim for exclusion, that the topic should fail WP:LISTN, has already been refuted by suggesting appropriate sourcing, isn't it? Daranios (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I've overlooked something. @Industrial Insect: You claim we have only one good for this. But did you consider the sources in Translating The Lord of the Rings#Bibliography, talking about the topic of translations as a group? And then of course there is an enormous number of sources talking about and analyzing specific translations. Daranios (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sources are more about the process of translating LOTR (which is why I believe the article fails NLIST), rather than the actual translations themselves. Then again, I don't have access to the sources since they're offline, so I may be wrong Industrial Insect (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not just about the process, but also include lists of translations into particular languages and editorial comments about the translations and their place within the history of translation. In other words, they include partial lists. Also, some of the argumentation against the LOTR translation list is that it isn't "notable". How do you measure "notable"? Is it measured in terms of clicks? If so, then 90% of the lists and articles in Wikipedia should be deleted. The true nature of Wikipedia is that virtually unlimited bandwidth means that we can have articles on Waurika, Oklahoma, a speck of a burg in southwestern Oklahoma whose only claim to fame might be that its name means "worm eaters" in Comanche. How many clicks does THAT article generate and how notable on the world stage is it? This list is specialized to people who are interested in one particular book and its notability is that, unlike the vast majority of books ever written, it has been translated into dozens of languages. I daresay that this list generates more clicks than Waurika, Oklahoma in a year. I refer to it regularly and it serves as the source material for abbreviated lists in many LOTR fan sites outside Wikipedia. Notability should never be judged in an absolute sense, but in a relative sense. The question of notability should always be, "Is this list useful or notable to the Wikipedia users who find interest in the topic?" It should never be, "Is this list useful or notable to the average Wikipedia user?" As you can probably see from the discussion, there are more editors who find interest in the topic who want to keep this list than not. That's the true measure of "notability". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your obvious problem with what Wikipedia defines as notable (as found in WP:N) is completely outside of this AfD's scope. Please stop arguing that our encyclopedia's definition of notability is wrong, it was created this way for a reason. Anyways, ignoring the irrelevant arguments after the first two sentences, the history of translation counts as "the process of translation". I'm just not seeing how the sources discuss the translations as a group. Further explanation would be helpful. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Insect: You mentioned that you see one good source. Aside from the others already mentioned which may not all be accessible online, From Imagination to Faërie, pp. 68-73, gives some points about specific translations but mainly discussed issues of importance to the translations as a group. Daranios (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the source, but I still feel like it's just talking about the process of translation. Not much about the translations themselves are mentioned, and just about most of what I read was already in Translating The Lord of the Rings. Also, it's possible that WP:NOTDATABASE applies as pointed out by Sandstein. Industrial Insect (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Insect: I don't see this distinction between the process of translation and the translations it leads to. That seems to me like claiming the "Development" section we commonly have for works of fiction should be treated as a separate topic from the work it is about. Rather, I think the process of translation is a discussion of the translations it produces as a group.

@Industrial Insect and Sandstein: I also don't think that it is consensus that WP:NOTDATABASE excludes listings of bibliographical data in general, seeing that we e.g. have a specific guideline for how to create them in WP:MOS-BIBLIO. And if such listings are too large to conveniently fit into a parent topic, they are split out as a separate list. Notability is then no longer beside the point, as it can be used to decide which specific bibliographies to include, thus avoiding indiscriminately collecting data. All that said, I believe an additional commentary column could benefit the list, to provide more context. Analytical and review-like secondary sources exist for many translations and could be used there, beyond the broader concepts conveyed in the prose article. This list then also would become a place for what secondary sources have to say about individual translations, but which is not so much as to warrant a separate article for a specific translation. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations have been added to the various partial lists mentioned above. In addition, the two books on translating Tolkien by Thomas Honegger have been described and cited in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTDB; Wikipedia is not a repository for bibliographical data. The issue of notability is beside the point. The topic of LOTR translation is notable, of course, but that's why we have a prose article about that, Translating The Lord of the Rings. Sandstein 19:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Translating The Lord of the Rings: where such a list is relevant, and doesn't need to be independently notable. Owen× ☎ 23:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list was originally a part of the prose article Translating The Lord of the Rings and was separated out only recently. I would agree to merge or keep, but not "delete". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize that "delete" was ambiguous in my comment. If this is merged, then I assume that this separate article would cease to exist, but that the content would live on in the original article. My objection to "delete" is deleting the content without a merge. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into main article and Delete this undiscussed split. There is no reason for a separate article. // Timothy :: talk 07:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I dont see anything wrong with it. It doesn't fail WP:LIST nor WP:SIGCOV. It certainly needs work, but it's not bomb-grade. I'm not opposed to a merge as a second choice, which f soften my first choice for lists/POV forks. FWIW, I've read it in English, but I'm not a fanboy. Bearian (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Translating The Lord of the Rings. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not keep it is not notable, so keep is inappropriate. I am indifferent to deleting vs merging. (t · c) buidhe 01:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep, as a "short, complete list[] of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" of translations of The Lord of the Rings, meeting WP:CSC. Additionally, appropriate context and annotations can be added meeting WP:LISTPURP. Finally, while WP:MOS-BIBLIO doesn't outright say that bibliographies are notable, it implies that there is some consensus that bibliography pages are appropriate. I think a merge would just result in a WP:SPLIT discussion and there's no reason to delay the inevitable. Just realized I relisted this. Self-trout voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ROTFL, but it's ROTLOTRFL. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:18, 9 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. Sandstein 19:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slavcho Boychev

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

Per WP:NSPORT, the existence of stat pages is not enough to prove notability. There are no other sources referenced, and nothing shows up in a search for news articles or other sourceable media. This article clearly doesn't meet the notability requirements. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems like he went on to have a political career. JTtheOG (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was convert to disambiguation page‎. Sandstein 19:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Busch Field

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

No refs on the page for many years. Not seeing substantial coverage of the topic in independent reliable sources needed for consideration against the inclusion criteria. JMWt (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreeing for the reasons listed above, and I would raise the idea of redirecting to Busch Stadium Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page with an entry for William & Mary Tribe#Field hockey and an entry for the more notable Busch Stadium. Maintain article history at the DAB page. I would have voted "redirect" if not for the complication of the other stadium. Fails GNG due to no SIGCOV, but a reasonable search term. Frank Anchor 20:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support disambig per Frank Anchor. Giant Snowman 18:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Hornsea Museum (selectively) and then redirect. Daniel (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holderness museums

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

Unclear what this article is even about. Mentions one small archive, without a claim to notability, shared across the 3 museums that aren't otherwise tied together. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, History, and United Kingdom. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This BBC reference explains the oral history project. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting coincidence that the project officer's name in that link is so similar the article creator. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its a project or scheme to record oral histories. Its not encyclopaedic. I searched and looked for sources but there's nothing I can find. Desertarun (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selectively merge into Hornsea Museum, or vice versa. They are one and the same registered charity. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge as suggested by Bearian, specifically into Hornsea Museum, because IMHO the museum page clearly describes a specific and notable physical location already with cited pagespace. We can clearly verify Hornsea Museum. If a demonstrated connection between all three can be shown in reliable sources, I'd be happy to see this namespace recreated as describing that organization, including detail of all related locations. BusterD (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as fair option. Agletarang (talk) 19:09, 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 00:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qaum

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

This appears to be just an Arabic dictionary definition for Nation. Both sources used are just for the English word. At one stage this was a redirect to Nation, but this doesn't meet the usual expectation for cross-language redirects of specific relevance. Also of note is that the ar.wiki article ar:قوم is not about Nation, but a short stub about something else. Originally this article was a redirect to Qawm, but it is not mentioned there and I'm unsure if that is also a cross-language redirect. CMD (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CMD (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dicdef. Desertarun (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gosh this has been knocking about for twenty years! Just a dictionary definition of a word in another language. Mccapra (talk) 20:39, 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.

Belg der Belgen

AfDs for this article:

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

No refs on the page for many years. Appears to be a newspaper poll (rather than similar pages on Belgian TV shows) with little to suggest that notability has been shown to the inclusion standards JMWt (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Belgium. JMWt (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

with respect to the 2011 AfD, I would say that the fact no sources have been added between then and now suggests that there aren't any to find. Hence not notable. JMWt (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A major competition of Het Nieuwsblad, the second newspaper of Belgium in readership, falling just short of Het Laatste Nieuws. Nomination is focused on references in the article, unjustifiably circumventing the golden WP:NEXIST rule. gidonb (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The following are articles entirely on the competition.[27] [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] Important to add that the interest is continuous and the results of the Belg der Belgen are often referenced since. gidonb (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. If no more participation, this discussion will likely close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Het Nieuwsblad. Each and every source applied and suggested are from the newspaper creating the poll, so of course they're covering it every time. It's a promotion by the journal. Nothing independent or reliable applied. A newspaper might proclaim anybody anything they like, but if nobody else covered it, Wikipedia doesn't either. BusterD (talk) 14:24, 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 delete‎. Sandstein 19:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Way Out with Jurriaan Kamp

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

Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Environment, and Netherlands. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The network it's on, EarthX, doesn't have an article; it does have some distribution on major pay-TV systems in the US, but like other channels like AWE, it's basically a dumping ground for vanity project environmental documentaries even Tubi can't bother to deal with like this show. The WP:SPAness doesn't help here, either. Nate • (chatter) 23:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm probably going to end up agreeing with the Delete vote, although I'm still looking to see if there's more sources, but I feel like I have to point out that the fact that the network it's on (EarthX) doesn't have an article is not a valid reason for deletion. The network actually looks like it could easily have an article, as there's a lot of secondary sources reporting on it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:53, 12 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 13:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Burroughs File

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

No refs on the page for many years and claims on the page can be removed per WP:V. Not seeing notability outside of the author William S. Burroughs JMWt (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find coverage to argue that this meets WP:GNG. Pinging Ghosts of Europa, who might know of some sources. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked through a dozen academic books about Burroughs by Barry Miles, Jenny Skerl, Timothy Murphy, etc. I didn’t see any references to this collection beyond offhand references like “This letter is included in The Burroughs File.” Ghosts of Europa (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've found some brief mentions in books referring to it but nothing SIG/of depth that warrants notability. X (talk) 16:41, 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.

Rumen Shankulov

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

This article doesn't meet the notability guidelines set down in WP:SPORTCRIT Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, submitted by accident this before I was finished writing the reasons. There are no sources outside of trivial stat listings, which are not considered a contribution to notability. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Going by the player's career, I could see some notability. They had a good season in the Bulgarian first tier with Cherno More Varna, two good seasons abroad with Israeli second-tier club Hapoel Rishon LeZion and three in Cyprus with second-tier side Omonia Aradippou. A web search, however, did find anything close to WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps we'd need to search using a different spelling of their name, for example in his native Cyrillic or in Hebrew (for his time in Israel)? Robby.is.on (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC) ; edited 21:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no significant coverage can be found. With no prejudice to recreation if someone is eventually able to find sources. (t · c) buidhe 03:09, 9 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hakeem Nisar Ahmad

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL as he never won a national or provincial election, merely running for an election does not make one notable. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any significant coverage except for press releases about his part in running for elections to which he did not win. Fails WP:NPOL as not having won any seat-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: [38] Did not win his election so no WP:NPOL pass, and there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV of him beyond routine campaigning releases. Curbon7 (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 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 delete. The author was a blocked sock (G5), and it's snowing down below anyway. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KJ Dhaliwal

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

Does not pass WP:GNG /WP:BIO.

The Forbes article is authored by a brand builder.
Nothing about the subject in the TOI article.
Source 3 is a blog.
nytimes article is an opinion piece.
[39] No significant coverage and a primary source.
Looks like the dealstreetasia article is about the app Dil Mil.
qz.com is about the app again.
techcrunch.com is about the app. WP:TECHCRUNCH
[40] has no mention of the subject. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and United States of America. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and Internet. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: subject lacks GNG as most of the sources available online are press releases, passing mentions, etc. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per source analysis by Jeraxmoira. To satisfy GNG articles need significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources which the subject of the article does not have. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5450:3A3:46CC:17EC (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are just about his company, that too mostly about fundings. No independent sources about the subject. Lacks GNG 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 19:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Punjab, California, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The individual doesn't meet WP:GNG, and the sources provided aren't independent reliable secondary sources. Blogs, opinions, and primary sources can't establish notability. Grabup (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Kind of close, but not close enough. I think the Dil Mil app could be notable, so this can be redirected there if an article for Dil Mil is made. Cleo Cooper (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Edunjobi

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

An article about an individual that doesn't meet out general notability guidelines for inclusion of musicians, actors and as the case may be. The sources doesn't seem to be significantly covered and per se, have more of PR and paid writing. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: withdrawn by nominator. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant awards (https://thenet.ng/kent-edunjobi-wins-first-amvca-for-anikulapo-soundtrack/) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, winning a major award remember per WP:ANYBIO doesn't mean the person is notable. It means likely and the award hasn't be credited multiple times. My major concern here is the source as much of them are somewhat PR. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: As pointed out by Mushy Yank, the subject won a major award. Moreover, he has produced the soundtrack to notable films such as Roti, Citation, A Naija Christmas, and Anikulapo. Although majority of the sources (1, 2, 3, 4) discussing the subject aren't independent of him, I feel like the two previous facts stated are enough for a weak keep. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: awards mean he passes notability outlined by WP:MUSICBIO InDimensional (talk) 11:06, 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 merge‎ to List of bicycle parts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bashguard

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

No refs on the page for many years. Appears to be a WP:DICDEF which would be difficult to expand and source properly. JMWt (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of bicycle parts. Sourcing a basic definition is easy enough, e.g. [41]. Jfire (talk) 13:10, 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) 10:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Midnight's Children. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chutnification

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

I don't think this topic is notable enough to have it's own page but the information would be useful as a small section in Midnight's Children. Perhaps under style or reception. (I hope this is the right way to go about this) Moritoriko (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Moritoriko (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Midnight's Children per nom.

Neocorelight (Talk) 04:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Midnight's Children per nom. The vast majority (if not all) of Google Scholar hits for the term are about the novel or use it as the primary example. Jfire (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. This is a Rushdie-ism and at most belongs in the Midnight's Children article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:37, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp El Tesoro

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

This camp seems to have received no significant coverage over its long history. A google brings up nothing but a couple of blogs and a press release, and a search of the newspapers.com archive only brings up advertisements in local newspapers, nothing that would contribute to GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable in particular for their program for bereaved children. See e.g. [42][43], [44], [45], ProQuest 390323292, ProQuest 235247096. One of the camp counselors received the President's Volunteer Service Award: [46]. Jfire (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added sources. This is a very well-known children's camp in Texas. — Maile (talk) 23:47, 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 12:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Mariette

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

Only 2 articles link to this. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Sources confirm he's been a CEO but lacking WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, France, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a simple Proquest search for ""Bernard Mariette" yields a lot of international results over the last two decades. Was there a WP:BEFORE? Nfitz (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But how many of these are WP:SIGCOV? I see a number of routine company announcements. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there's some like that - perhaps even a majority! But look deeper. Where did you search during the BEFORE? What's wrong with the references C&A highlights below? Nfitz (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please give actual examples of sources that are indepth and satisfy WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Plenty of significant coverage found in Newsbank also. Many of the hits are low quality PR, but there are more than enough that aren't. E.g. "Quiksilver Retrenches Its Top Leadership February 12, 2008 LA Times," "Downhill Run March 19. 2010 The Deal," and "Trouble in the tube April 3, 2010 The Age". The LA Times piece is already used in the article, but the others aren't. Therefore meets GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with above editors. Enough news coverage exists to keep this one. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 16:27, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of DNS blacklists

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

Almost entirely self-sourced to the website of purported DNS blacklists. I was unable to find much sourcing specifically about comparison of different blacklists, so I believe WP:LISTN is not met even if the NOR issues (i.e. categorization of different blacklists into reputable and "suspect" lists based on primary sources) could be overcome. I don't see any content with sufficient sourcing to preserve. (t · c) buidhe 08:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. (t · c) buidhe 08:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While the blacklists may be notable, the construction of a comparison is basically WP:OR and probably falls foul of WP:NOTCATALOG; it'll also be utterly unmaintainable as lists change. This isn't Wikipedia's business. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, and as violating WP:HOWTO. These types of lists almost always violate the rule against creating directories of how to compare one things to another. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 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 redirect‎ to Aranmanai 4. as an ATD. If you strongly object to this Redirection, feel free to take it to WP:RFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baakghost

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

The sources are all about Aranmanai 4, but make no mention of "Baakghost" or "Baak" (except in one source "Baak" is mentioned but it appears to be a character from Aranmanai 4." A hoax? Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A note that I have just nominated this for speedy deletion, even the IMDb doesn't exist for this "film". Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aranmanai 4, unless this version differs significantly. See my comment on TP (where I contested G3) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC) (Comment edited after I removed the CSD tag from the page)[reply]
Good catch, I also support redirect. Cleo Cooper (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aranmanai 4. The fact that the film was partially reshot (small percentage) with two different actors is entirely unsourced (till release). See List_of_multilingual_Indian_films#Partially_reshot_films. An attempt to recreate Baak (Telugu Film). @SenthilGugan: Mostly dubbed films do not get separate articles. DareshMohan (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Baakghost is incorrect; it is Baak. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is right, I forgot to mention that; but the content/subject being the said film, I find it is fairer, so as to be able to keep page history and credits, to rename after it's kept as redirect, than to plainly delete. That's what is generally done when the title of an Afded article appears to be incorrect. But thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It looks like just a copy-edited version of Aranmanai 4; Just an unnecessary content fork. Redirecting is pointless as not even the Google recognizes the name. See here 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All Google Search results are related to the Assamese folklore creature; and nothing about the film. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is totally unnecessary. Grabup (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but move the poster to the other article if possible. Looks cool. (141.132.22.10 (talk) 08:13, 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.

Jormungandr (roller coaster)

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

Probably either delete, or merge to Drayton Manor Resort due to lack of SIGCOV. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks, Entertainment, and England. Owen× ☎ 07:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what kind of improvements would need to be made? Sorry this is my first page so not 100% sure if its ok but tried to mimic layouts and information of other rides. Thanks Maddisongiselle (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Maddisongiselle: The most important thing is finding more coverage of the coaster in reliable published sources. Do you know of stories about Jormungandr (or Buffalo Coaster) in newspapers, books, magazines or other web sources? Toughpigs (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did good work. Please read what @Toughpigs noted. Cleo Cooper (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:15, 8 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 merge‎ to List of Book of Mormon places. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jershon

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

Wp:gng. This is an in universe location with little attention inside LDS circles, and none in independent reliable sources - especially no indepth coverage we could use to build an article Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Latter Day Saints. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 05:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Book of Mormon places. Doesn't seem like there's enough to make a notable stand-alone page from. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 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) 06:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Book of Mormon places. Available secondary coverage of Jershon is better suited to summarization in Anti-Nephi-Lehies, for which Jershon is the setting. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:27, 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 no consensus‎ without prejudice to renomination or a merge discussion per WP:NOQUORUM. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basque trinquete

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

No refs on the page for many years. There are a number of unref claims on the page which could be removed per WP:V but I'm also unclear whether this is a duplicate page with content from another or something else altogether. There are WP pages in other languages but they don't have many refs and do not clear up the confusion. It feels like it could perhaps be merged with Basque pelota but I'm confused so this might not be appropriate for reasons I do not fully understand JMWt (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Argentina. JMWt (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this page is deleted, something will also have to be done with the Trinquete disambiguation page, which has only this entry and Valencian trinquet. Valencian trinquet also does not cite any sources, so could potentially fail notability as well. Bandit Heeler (talk) 08:53, 17 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) 06:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to a new chapter in Basque pelota. Sources exist on the web, so the article could probably be kept, but I agree that this would make more sense as a chapter in the parent article, which already has sections on the equipment used in the sport, so why not also on the court. You may like to note that notability does not rest on whatever citations have or have not been put in an article, but on what exists in the world outside. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Enough RS to satisfy GNG. For instance [47], [48]. This last is a doctoral thesis entirely about the Basque ball game which includes extensive discussion of the trinquete, including comparisons and contrasts with the fronton.Central and Adams (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. The nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet and there are no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secret combination (Latter Day Saints)

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

Per wp:notdict and wp:gng, this is a definition of an in universe phrase using only in universe sources. No secondary sources seem to have spent time writing anything in depth about the use of the phrase secret combination in Mormon culture Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC) the nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The statement that No secondary sources seem to have spent time writing anything in depth about the use of the phrase secret combination is not quite accurate. Looking through Google Scholar reveals the following:
- Dan Vogel, "Mormonism's 'Anti-Masonick Bible'", John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 9 (1989): 17–30), with discussion of how it was a euphemism for Freemasonry.
- Seth R. Payne, "Satan's Plan: The Book of Mormon, Glenn Beck and Modern Conspiracy", paper presented at a 2014 meeting of the American Academy of Religion held in Calgary, Canada and released on SSRN: mentions how the phrase was an anti-Masonic euphemism in the nineteenth century and became a term popular among Latter-day Saint conspiracy theorists in the twenty-first century.
- Patrick Q. Mason, "Ezra Taft Benson and Modern (Book of) Mormon Conservatism", in Out of Obscurity: Mormonism Since 1845, eds. Patrick Q. Mason and John G. Turner (Oxford University Press, 2016), 63–80, about how LDS Church president and Dwight D. Eisenhower cabinet member Ezra Taft Benson used the phrase "secret combination" and applied it to his right-wing understanding of U. S. politics.
- Robert A. Goldberg, "From New Deal to New Right", in Thunder from the Right: Ezra Taft Benson in Mormonism and Politics, ed. Matthew L. Harris (University of Illinois Press, 2019), 68–96, also about Benson's use of the term "secret combination" in his politics.

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, we could reduce the entire article to "'secret combination' is an LDS-specific shibboleth that means 'alliance of evildoers'". As the sources cited above make clear, the term is not generally used or meaningful to anyone outside the LDS movement. But even within the movement it means different things at different times (e.g. the distinctive and personal interpretation by Ezra Taft Benson described in the Mason source above vs. the anti-Freemasonry version described in the Vogel source above). I can see how from an LDS perspective they could be collected based on their common origin into one article, but as a reader and contributor to a general encyclopedia I think that a standalone article probably doesn't help our readers as much as directing them to more useful, contextual information about the few disparate instances where the term's invocation (not just origin) is worth discussing.
So, is there any interest in replacing this unbalanced article with two or three entries in the parent secret combination DAB pointing interested readers to those existing articles, something like "a term for groups of evildoers in the Book of Ether", "a term historically used to distinguish between Mormonism and Freemasonry", "a term used by politician Ezra Taft Benson to describe political conspiracies", that sort of thing? Those articles should already be talking about "secret combinations", and if they aren't, well, that's interesting too, but it could be rectified in those articles using some of the sources provided above, I would think. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 01:15, 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) 06:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First, the sources already in the article are sufficient to meet GNG. Second, there are very many other sources available via GScholar. Central and Adams (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its a borderline case but I think on review we are slightly over the GNG line here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Lambert

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

Fails the notability guideline for people. PROD was removed. Sources are either not independent or do not provide significant coverage. – Teratix ₵ 05:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Australia, and New York. – Teratix ₵ 05:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she is a COO and has significant news coverage, as well as in-depth coverage (see citations for Fortune, NPR, Tearsheet) which meets WP:NBIO. Because she has a commonly used name, some of the news coverage for Lambert is hard to find. I added new citations since the AfD listing. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citations you have added are a classic example of a notability bomb – inserting a lot of insignificant references to create a superficial appearance of notability. For the benefit of other editors I will address each of them, but in future AfD discussions, instead of adding a dozen insignificant references and expecting other editors to pick through them, try to focus on a few excellent sources.
- Source 1 (Fortune) is an interview with Lambert that is too brief to constitute significant coverage and does not provide independent analysis of Lambert beyond her interview responses.
- Source 2 (NPR) is an obvious PR piece – if we dig a little deeper we find Lambert was elected to the NPR board, making this source non-independent and an obvious non-starter.
- Sources 3–8 and 10 are about various things Lambert's employers did. None of them provide significant coverage of Lambert herself, but rather mention her only in passing. Again, these obviously constitute a notability bomb.
- Sources 9 and 13 are profiles of Lambert for a conference she spoke at. These are obviously not independent sources.
- Source 11 is a press release, obviously not independent.
- The bulk of Source 12 (Tearsheet) is paywalled. I'm unfamiliar with Tearsheet, but looking at their About Us page brought me to this page explaining their services, where they describe their purpose as [helping] financial services and fintech firms create memorable and meaningful content and get it in front of their target readers and exhort prospective customers to let us craft your unique story in a way that’s memorable and provides value to your audience. I conclude Tearsheet is not an independent reliable source but rather a vehicle for advertorials.
– Teratix ₵ 07:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert does share her name with others but it is easy to account for this by using more precise search terms or skipping over sources that obviously don't refer to Lambert the executive. – Teratix ₵ 07:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 is not an interview, and source 2 has no date (also I don’t think source 2 is PR, because I would expect PR would mention her current employer, or her status at the NPR board for example). Source 12 is not paywalled for me, it has biographical details (and not an interview) but I was also not familiar with the site, and perhaps it is questionable like you say. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Fortune: Honestly, it doesn't really matter what we call it – the point is it contains very little substantive coverage of Lambert, and what little there is has clearly drawn on interview responses from Lambert or just directly quotes her. Bottom line: it's not a source that provides the significant coverage needed to contribute to notability.

On NPR: a profile that appears on the website of a company for which she serves as a board member, that opens by gushing Lambert is a visionary, outcome driven executive and calls her a transformational leader with a proven track record – you don't think that's PR? You think that's an independent source we should accept as key evidence of Lambert's notability? That's your honest and thoughtfully considered view? – Teratix ₵ 10:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Tearsheet article on Internet Archive. I also added it to the citation. S0091 (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PigeonChickenFish: Any further comment? – Teratix ₵ 15:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still meets WP:NBIO PigeonChickenFish (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on which specific sources? – Teratix ₵ 00:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are not in-depth and not WP:SIGCOV like routine company coverage. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on source review. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:38, 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 redirect‎ to Nord Anglia Education. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British International School of Kuala Lumpur

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

Article was AfDed in 2014 and closed as no consensus per a part WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which subsequently was repealed in 2017. Since the previous nom, no new sources have come to light. Probably best if we redirect to Nord Anglia Education. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the redirect to Nord Anglia Education. Bduke (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nord Anglia Education. I have searched but cannot find information to demonstrate a pass of WP:GNG. The school is reasonably new and it may become notable in the future, but the redirect will preserve page history should that happen. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 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.

David Xanatos

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE shows that most of the sources were from the film, except this [49]. But, that is not enough for the character. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 04:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 04:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic does not need to be the main subject to "count" with regard to notability. In my view, the mentioned Polygon article, this IGN article and the appearance in The Tropes of Fantasy Fiction, together with briefer appearances like here, establish enough material and commentary to fulfill the requirements of WP:WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT, and therefore establish notability. Daranios (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Despite the existence of a great Polygon article for SIGCOV, the character doesn't pass GNG with the demonstrated sources. A compromise would be merging him to a list of characters. The trope of Xanatos Gambit is purely a TVTropes thing and isn't super well-known outside of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: If the trope of Xanatos Gambit is purely a TVTropes thing, then why does it appear in secondary sources, including academic ones? Daranios (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing and getting heavy discussion are two different things. But if the trope is indeed discussed heavily in scholarly sources, it might merit an article on the trope itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think it's "discussed heavily", but it is discussed to some degree. Which again is different from being purely a TVTropes thing in my view. So I think it would be quite fitting to include the trope to a degree within the article here, which in turn means there is enough material to constitute a non-stubby article. Daranios (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting yet but concurring with Daranios here. If the concept is receiving actual discussion then it is a valid topic to cover in the article, regardless of potential origin. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep, per Daranios. DrBat (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a brief sourced summary to Gargoyles (TV series), fails GNG, nothing found meeting WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth are passing mentions at best, nothing that meets SIGCOV. BEFORE found nothing that meets SIRS. // Timothy :: talk 03:12, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golf Australia Magazine

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

No indication this meets WP:GNG. Sources provided are primary/promotional in nature. Most substantial source I have been able to locate is this brief fluff interview with the editor. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Golf, and Australia. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have performed some searches earlier with the same result. It is very strange that one of the few remaining golf magazines in a large country does not appear to generate much in terms of independent sources describing it (I even checked press in the National Library). --Викидим (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Zaikina

AfDs for this article:

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

Absolutely fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Georgia (country), and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject definitely fails WP:NSKATE and I am struggling to find any coverage at all. For reference, the Cyrillic script transliteration of her name seems to be Екатерина Заикина. JTtheOG (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed that it fails WP:NSKATE. Further, de minimis test of notability appears to be their participation in World Juniors, which doesn't seem to have any RS coverage. - Cara Wellington (talk)

Cara Wellington (talk) 06:25, 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 14:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source Insight

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

This has been unsourced and has notability issues for over a decade. Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 04:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are some reviews out there in trade journals, but the independence of those is highly questionable. I cannot find any sources meeting criteria. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:07, 19 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 04:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage from secondary sources. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to A-ha. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Ratcliff (producer)

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO, and I do not believe being a producer for a notable band is an automatic WP:NMUSIC pass either. I could not locate sources with substantial coverage of Ratcliff. All sources cover him only peripherally, as a producer for a-Ha. The article is now primarily an autobiography. Would accept a redirect to a-Ha as an alternative to deletion. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and United Kingdom. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I not only re- produced the final masters of 8 of the tracks on a-ha’s 15 million selling first album Hunting High and Low but I also discovered them in 1983 and kept them, gave them £thousands and helped secure a record deal with Warners. I managed them under contract from 1983 to 1993 and without my financial and creative input they would have returned to Norway and never been heard of again! How dare you propose to delete this article. I have nearly completed my autobiography which inevitably contains the entire story of how I rescued them when they had no money left and put them in my recording studio for 2 years without any return for another 12 months. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Journalism, Television, Advertising, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree that REDIRECT to a-Ha is appropriate. Most sources are primary references. The only third party references are more about a-Ha with this subject being mentioned tangentially. Otherwise, this article seems more promotional than anything else. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you presume! You know nothing. In 1983 a-ha came into my studio but ran out of money after 2 weeks. For the next 2 years I covered every housing cost., food cost and leisure costs out of my own pocket because I believed in their talent.I also let them have free studio time for 2 years during which we recorded and produced nearly all of the tracks on their first album. I became their manager in 1983 and their contract lasted with me until 1993!Their best 10 years to date. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I.will take legal action if you have the cheek to remove this article. My autobiography is almost finished detailing my entire 10 years managing the band and the consequences for both a-ha and myself. 200 million record sales for a start! If you want a copy of my management contract with a-ha just ask. I lost my house and marriage while supporting the band before their success. Buy my autobiography next year and you can read every detail. Nobody, nobody knows the ‘a-ha’ history better than I do. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Get your facts right. I discovered the band when they came into my studio and spent 2 weeks recording. I liked what I heard and when they ran out of time and money I supported them for 2 years before Take on Me became a bestseller.I was contractually their Manager from 1983 to 1993. I re-produced 8 out of 10 tracks on their first and most popular album Hunting high and Low. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are two decent sources on the article, both telling the story of the recording of "Take On Me": "Talking Away: A-Ha On The Making Of Take On Me" on The Quietus, and "Classic Tracks: A-ha 'Take On Me'" on Sound on Sound. There may be some claim to notability. However, the article subject badgering us and making legal threats on this deletion discussion makes it difficult for me to vote keep. Toughpigs (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not going to allow this article to remain then you are ignoring the truth of the matter. I thought the truth was a basic necessity of a site that should only provide fact.I am only writing as a matter of principle. My lawyers will only reveal their legal expertise. Buy the album…my name is all over the sleeve. More times than the band members themselves 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To toughpig. I don’t give a damn - oh sorry..is that blasphemy? In this day and age? I am in no way making threats! I am merely standing up for myself and the truth.Who is your superior? Put him/her on to it before I wake up my lawyer and we can sort this out legally and properly. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I now understand the reason for your username. Well I am tough too but my lawyer is tougher, and very expensive as you will discover should this minuscule matter not be resolved satisfactorily. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To tough pig. It says you have ‘2 decent sources’. What better ‘source’ could you have but myself. I discovered, produced and managed ‘a-ha’ for 10 years from 1983 to 1993. I think my knowledge of this entire matter is inevitably going to be seen as the most accurate. Your organisation obviously listens hardest to those names you recognise. You don’t realise that it’s the people behind the names who have a far greater knowledge and understanding for detail than you ever will. Change your username….or is it your real name? I do apologise. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will be very easy for me to find out who you really are. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
217.137.18.193, stop your threats. WP:NLT and WP:OUTING are policies here. You can vent, and you can argue for this article to be kept, but you can't harass people. Jfire (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read my opening statements from the top again. Johnratcliff (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not harassing anyone. I am merely pointing out that I am not ‘just’ their producer. I discovered them in 1983, kept, housed, fed and gave them my studio for 2 years,signed them to an extremely lucrative management contract for 5 years and then to a major deal with Warners. That is an awful lot more than ‘producing’ a track don’t you think? Johnratcliff (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was their manager from 1983 to 1993.I still get royalties!

Why am I having to justify facts that are common knowledge in my industry? Johnratcliff (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your opening statement and I believe you when you say you've done all those things for the band and were important to their success. But saying things like "I will take legal action if you have the cheek to remove this article", "My lawyers will only reveal their legal expertise", "before I wake up my lawyer and we can sort this out legally", and "It will be very easy for me to find out who you really are" is not okay here. You need to avoid making statements that can be construed as legal threats or threats to reveal someone's identity.

"Why am I having to justify facts that are common knowledge in my industry?" is a valid question. The answer is that one of the pillars of Wikipedia is that information here is verifiable: readers must be able to check that any information is not just made up. That means we can't rely on what's "common knowledge" in any industry unless it's been published in reliable sources somewhere. When your autobiography is published, we may be able to use it as a source in a-ha (depending on whether it is self-published or not). But we can't just rely on your own personal statements here, even if we believe them. Jfire (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if you feel I was harassing you. ‘a-ha’ is a very sensitive subject for me. I gave up my home and lost my wife and young child on account of my involvement with a-ha. So it is a passionate and sensitive subject.

I reiterate, I am very sorry to have upset you.

John Johnratcliff (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a-ha (with merging in of any useful information) pending publication of the autobiography referred to by the 217 IP (who appears to be the same person as Johnratcliff?). If it gets reviews in reliable sources, the article can then be reinstated based on those in addition to the few good sources currently present. Notability is borderline at present, since it can't be inherited from the band (and since our criterion for an independent page is notability, not admiration). The article is an under-referenced BLP and the last paragraph is stylistically inappropriate: "PS ... John". But it may be rewritable from sources a year from now. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, does not seem independently notable. Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Yngvadottir. I removed a lot of recent COI additions that were entirely unsourced. Those should not be in a BLP. What remains are 4 sources that I will throw into a source analysis table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirfurboy
https://www.johnratcliff.com/john--a-ha	"In his own words". His own website. WP:SPS	? Reliable but self promotional		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20220521024623/https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/ha-take-me		I believe it is. Didn't actually check.	He is mentioned in the source several times but there is no significant information about him	✘ No
https://thequietus.com/articles/18805-aha-hunting-high-and-low-take-on-me-review-anniversary			He is mentioned in the source several times but there is no significant information about him	✘ No
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/01727601			A primary source that says nothing about Ratcliffe in any case	✘ 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}}.

However the redirect is reasonable as this is clearly someone who gets a mention regarding a-ha and is borderline notable. Although the above assessment covers what is in the page, there could be more secondary sources on him. However the name is quite common and searching is complicated by finding other notable Jonh Ratcliffes. I was not able to find any suitable coverage, but if multiple independent reliable secondary sources with sigificant coverage can be found, then, of course, this would be a notable subject for a page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a-ha: Not enough notability outside of a-ha to warrant an individual page. InDimensional (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a-ha. I haven't been able to find sources to support WP:GNG beyond those mentioned here, and none of those support a stand-alone article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a-ha I must admit the table really sold it to me Sansbarry (talk) 01:30, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jang Kyong-il

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few databases online, but nothing else to suggest GNG, delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here. Per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, also doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Noorullah (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hwang Hak-sun

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on the Japanese article, the guy is Japanese not Korean, but other than that error, I don't see GNG here. Govvy (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a quick Google search and couldnt find anything to construct WP:GNG. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apacer

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

Previously deleted and salted as Apacer Technology Inc. No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Taiwan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Ng, Celeste See-Pui; Chang, Pei-Chann (2009). "Exploring the Links between Competitive Advantage and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Upgrade Decision: A Case Study Approach". In Chou, Shuo-Yan; Trappey, Amy; Pokojski, Jerzy; Smith, Shana (eds.). Global Perspective for Competitive Enterprise, Economy and Ecology: Proceedings of the 16th ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering. London: Springer-Verlag. p. 185. doi:10.1007/978-1-84882-762-2_17. ISBN 978-1-84882-761-5. Retrieved 2024-04-28 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Apacer was founded in April 1997. The capital is over ten hundred million US dollars with approximately 500 staff members. The business volume is NTD120 millions in year 2003 and reached NTD140 million in 2004. The head-quarter is situated at the Nankang Software Park, Taipei. The firm currently has offices in USA, Netherlands, France, Tokyo, Middle East, India, Sydney, Hong Kong, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia. Apacer is a manufacturing company that develops dynamic RAM (DRAM). Apacer offers various types of sale services to its clients based on the size of the order and the size of the client's company."
2. "Apacer Technology Inc. (Taiwan, China)". EMIS. 2024-03-26. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The company summary of the report notes: "Apacer Technology Inc. was founded in 1997 and, from its earliest stage, positioned itself to be an agile supplier of DRAM whose primary operations focused on memory modules. The company provides standard DRAM memory modules, which include 128 megabyte (MB), 256MB, 512 MB, 1 gigabyte (GB), 2GB, 4GB and 8GB double data rate (DDR) I, DDR II and DDR III products; DRAM memory modules, which are applied in industrial computers, servers, printers, network products, routers and memory modules; flash memory cards, flash memory drives, multimedia players and digital peripheral products, including moving picture experts group layer-3 audio (MP3) players, flash drives, card readers, solid hard disks, universal serial bus (USB) hubs and USB chargers, among others, as well as embedded flash memory modules. Reliant upon the semiconductor’s complete vertical integration of the memory modules' technical capabilities with its professional marketing services, Apacer successfully created its own global brand and had become the world’s fourth largest memory module manufacturer by 1999. Since its establishment it has set up subsidiaries in the United States, the Netherlands, Japan, Mainland of China, India etc."
3. "Apacer Technology Inc. (Taiwan, China)" [宇瞻科技股份有限公司 (中国台湾地区)] (in Chinese). EMIS. 2024-03-26. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The company summary of the report notes: "1997年4月16日，成立企基科技股份有限公司，设立公司于台北市，资本额新台币10,000,000元，为宏基集团转投资公司，提供记忆体模组产品之专业制造商。同年7月，公司地址迁移至台北县汐止市，并更名为宇瞻科技股份有限公司。10月，成立宇瞻美国子公司。1998年1月，龙潭厂区设立。同年2月，成立欧洲子公司。4月，领先推出符合IntelPC100规格的记忆体模组。"
  From Google Translate: "On April 16, 1997, Apacer Technology Inc. was established in Taipei City with a capital of NT$10,000,000. It is a company invested by Acer Group and provides a professional manufacturer of memory module products. In July of the same year, the company's address was moved to Xizhi City, Taipei County, and its name was changed to Apacer Technology Co., Ltd. In October, Apacer's US subsidiary was established. In January 1998, Longtan factory was established. In February of the same year, a European subsidiary was established. In April, it took the lead in launching memory modules that meet Intel PC100 specifications."
4. Chen, Yanni 陳嬿妮 (1998-12-04). "宇瞻科技擦亮APACER招牌挾宏碁集團豐富資源在記憶體模組領域快速崛起" [Apacer Technology Polishes Apacer Brand. Leveraging Acer Group's rich resources to rapidly rise in the field of memory modules.]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 54.
  The review notes: "宏碁半導體集團旗下一支專業記憶體模組供應商一宇瞻科技公司，成立才一年半，漸露鋒芒。預期今年營業額將突破2．5億美元，已躍升全球前十大記憶體模組製造商；明年可望營收4億美元，前進全球前五大廠名列，擦亮自有品牌「Apacer」招牌。... 隨著營運版圖的擴大，一年半來宇瞻科技公司已由早期十多人組，增加到現在100多人公司，並在今年7月增設龍潭廠房且在美國、荷蘭都設有分公司，使Apacer記憶體模組新產品研發、生產及行銷能充份掌握。"
  From Google Translate: "Apacer Technology, a professional memory module supplier under the Acer Semiconductor Group, has only been established for a year and a half and is gradually showing its talents. Revenue this year is expected to exceed US$250 million, making it one of the top ten memory module manufacturers in the world. Next year, revenue is expected to reach US$400 million, ranking among the top five manufacturers in the world, and polishing its own brand "Apacer" brand. ... With the expansion of its operating territory, in the past year and a half, Apacer Technology has grown from a team of more than ten people in the early days to more than 100 people now. In July this year, it added a Longtan factory and has branches in the United States and the Netherlands. Apacer memory module new product development, production and marketing can be fully grasped."
5. Cao, Zhengfen 曹正芬 (2000-01-07). "宇瞻搶攻快閃記憶體卡商機網路通訊設備需求增加今年業績目標5,000萬美元" [Apacer seizes flash memory card business opportunities. Demand for network communication equipment increases; this year's performance target is US$50 million]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 30.
  The article notes: "宏碁集團轉投資公司宇瞻科技跨足快閃記憶體卡領域，由於網路、通訊設備需求增加，宇瞻將快閃記憶體卡今年業績目標訂為5,000萬美元。 ... 宇瞻為國內記憶體模組廠商，去年宣布跨入快閃記憶體卡領域，由宇瞻向業者購買快閃記憶體，自行組裝快閃記憶體卡。宇瞻當初決定跨足快閃記憶體卡，起意在於供應宏碁集團專用電腦 (XC)之需。"
  From Google Translate: "Acer Group's investment company Apacer Technology has entered the field of flash memory cards. Due to the increase in demand for network and communication equipment, Apacer has set a flash memory card performance target of US$50 million this year. ... Apacer is a domestic memory module manufacturer. Last year, it announced that it would enter the field of flash memory cards. Apacer will purchase flash memory from industry players and assemble the flash memory cards itself. Apacer originally decided to branch out into flash memory cards with the intention of supplying the Acer Group's dedicated computers (XC)."
6. Chen, Yanni 陳嬿妮 (2001-03-08). "宇瞻與聯測簽合作契約" [Apacer signs cooperation contract with Lianchai]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 26.
  The article notes: "全球第四大記憶體模組大廠宇瞻科技 (Apacer) 公司昨（7）日宣佈與聯測公司簽訂合作契約 ..."
  From Google Translate: "Apacer, the world's fourth largest memory module manufacturer, announced yesterday (7th) that it had signed a cooperation contract with Lianchai ..."
7. Lin, Maoren 林茂仁 (2004-01-27). "《《數位發燒商品》》宇瞻隨身燒精彩畫面不錯過" ["Digital Fever Products" Apacer burns with you, don’t miss the wonderful pictures]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 30.
  The article notes: "宇瞻的「隨身燒CP200」及「Audio Steno MS400隨身碟」兩款數位儲存產品，日前並雙雙獲得第十二屆「台灣精品獎」殊榮，其中「隨身燒CP200」更晉級「國家產品形象獎」，挑戰國家評鑑最高榮譽「國家產品金質獎」。宇瞻「Audio Steno MS400隨身碟」為全球首創相容於MemoryStick及Memory Stick Pro記憶卡的MP3隨身碟，目標鎖定全球超過四千萬人的Memory Stick記憶卡使用者。"
  From Google Translate: "Apacer's two digital storage products, "Portable Burner CP200" and "Audio Steno MS400 Flash Drive", recently both won the 12th "Taiwan Excellence Award". Among them, "Portable Burner CP200" was even promoted to the "National Product Image Award" , challenging the "National Product Gold Award", the highest honor in national evaluation. Apacer's "Audio Steno MS400 flash drive" is the world's first MP3 flash drive compatible with MemoryStick and Memory Stick Pro memory cards, targeting more than 40 million Memory Stick memory card users around the world."
8. Peng, Zihao 彭子豪 (2006-05-18). "宇瞻科技Tango系列隨身碟耍時尚" [Apacer Technology Tango series flash drive is fashionable]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. E3.
  The article notes: "許久沒推出新作的記憶體模組大廠－宇瞻科技（Apacer）日前推出「Tango」隨身碟系列，受到該公司過去於產品設計上具有不錯的口碑，這次推出的Tango系列在產品外觀上，確實和市場相關產品不同，賣相不差。「Tango」的外觀游走在科技與時尚的邊界，並融合資訊傳輸便利和流行時尚元素，外型硬挺陽剛外，更內建Tango軟體技術，透過「同步資料」的技術，"
  From Google Translate: "Apacer, a major memory module manufacturer that has not launched a new product for a long time, has recently launched the "Tango" flash drive series. Due to the company's good reputation for product design in the past, the Tango series launched this time has a unique appearance in terms of product appearance. It is indeed different from related products in the market, and the appearance is not bad. The appearance of "Tango" walks on the boundary between technology and fashion, and integrates information transmission convenience and popular fashion elements. It has a tough and masculine appearance, and it also has built-in Tango software technology. Through the "synchronization data" technology,"
9. Xu, Mujun 徐睦鈞 (2010-12-28). "宇瞻增加高毛利產品" [Apacer adds high-margin products]. United Evening News [zh] (in Chinese). p. B3.
  The article notes: "準上市記憶體模組股宇瞻科技 (8271)將在明天以每股21元掛牌 ... 宇瞻目前生產DRAM模組的標準型產品營收占70%，藉由徹底落實數字管理，即便在近年DRAM報價數度走弱下，獲利表現仍優於同業；而占營收比重30%的加值型產品毛利率貢獻度較高，未來將持續專注在工業用SSD市場以及數位家庭市場，預計明年加值型事業的營收比重將拉高到40%以上。"
  From Google Translate: "Apacer Technology (8271), a quasi-listed memory module stock, will be listed tomorrow at 21 yuan per share. ... Apacer currently produces 70% of its revenue from standard products of DRAM modules. By thoroughly implementing digital management, its profit performance is still better than that of its peers even when DRAM quotations have weakened several times in recent years; while Apacer accounts for 30% of its revenue. Value-added products have a high contribution to gross profit margin. In the future, they will continue to focus on the industrial SSD market and the digital home market. It is expected that the revenue proportion of value-added businesses will increase to more than 40% next year."
10. Zhou, Pinjun 周品均 (2010-12-29). "宇宇瞻上市漲幅衝3成今天好熱鬧鑫永銓櫃轉市漲0.15元弘憶新上市漲0.1元" [Apacer goes public, gains 30%. It's so lively today. Xinyongquan's new listing rose 0.15 yuan and Hongyi's new listing rose 0.1 yuan.]. United Evening News [zh] (in Chinese). p. B1.
  The article notes: "宇瞻前11月營收118.98億元，前3季稅後淨利2.92億元，每股盈餘(EPS)2.62元，雖然今年第四季動態隨機存取記憶體市況不佳，但宇瞻在毛利較高的加值型產品比重拉升的情況下，法人預期，今年EPS有望挑戰3元水準。... 宇瞻今上市開盤23.05元最高27.9元最低23元成交6460張"
  From Google Translate: "Apacer's revenue in the first November was 11.898 billion yuan, its net profit after tax in the first three quarters was 292 million yuan, and its earnings per share (EPS) was 2.62 yuan. Although the DRAM market conditions were not good in the fourth quarter of this year, Apacer's gross profit was higher With the proportion of value-added products increasing, the legal person expects that this year's EPS is expected to challenge the 3 yuan level. ... Apacer went public today. The opening price was 23.05 yuan, the highest was 27.9 yuan, the lowest was 23 yuan, and 6,460 contracts were traded."
11. Chen, Fuxia 陳復霞 (2017-05-19). "宇瞻科技成立20周年奠基工控第一" [Apacer Technology's 20th Anniversary, Laying the Foundation for the First Place in Industrial Control]. CTimes (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The article notes: "宇瞻科技(Apacer)歡慶成立20周年。宇瞻科技1997年創立，以持續打造最佳品質與效能兼具的創新領導產品，屢獲世界級肯定。自2012年起，連續四年蟬聯Gartner評比全球第一工業用固態硬碟供應商，奠基工控市場的領先地位。"
  From Google Translate: "Apacer celebrates its 20th anniversary. Founded in 1997, Apacer Technology continues to create innovative and leading products with the best quality and performance, and has repeatedly won world-class recognition. Since 2012, it has been ranked as the world's No. 1 industrial solid-state drive supplier by Gartner for four consecutive years, establishing its leading position in the industrial control market."
12. Sun, Yuliang 孙玉亮 (2013-01-04). "宇瞻张家騉:服务+创新深挖高利润行业" [Apacer Zhang Jiaqing: Service + Innovation to dig deep into high-profit industries]. ZOL [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The article notes: "Apacer宇瞻科技成立于1997年，初期公司以DRAM模组的专业供货商为定位，将经营聚焦在「记忆存储」。凭着对半导体垂直整合的完整内存模组技术能力与专业营销业务，成功在全球打出Apacer自有品牌，并于1999年成为全球第四大内存模组厂商。企业总部位于中国台湾，在上海设有宇瞻电子（上海）有限公司。此外在美国、欧洲、日本、印度等地设有分公司。"
  From Google Translate: "Apacer Technology was founded in 1997. In the early days, the company positioned itself as a professional supplier of DRAM modules and focused its business on "memory storage." With its complete memory module technology capabilities and professional marketing business in vertically integrating semiconductors, Apacer successfully launched its own brand around the world and became the world's fourth largest memory module manufacturer in 1999 . The company is headquartered in Taiwan, China, and has Apacer Electronics (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. in Shanghai. In addition, it has branches in the United States, Europe, Japan, India and other places."
13. Zhang, Xuhong 張旭宏 (2010-10-15). "台股宇瞻科技通過上市審議股價2天漲逾1成全年營收上看130億元" [Apacer Technology passes listing review, stock price rises by more than 10% in 2 days, annual revenue reaches 13 billion yuan]. 頭條新聞 [cnYES] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The article notes: "宇瞻科技成立於1997年，主要從事記憶體模組製造銷售，產品包含記憶體模組(DRAM Module)、快閃記憶體相關產品(如快閃記憶儲存卡、快閃碟、消費性儲存控制器、嵌入式快閃記憶體模組、可摧式多媒體儲存裝置)、動態隨機存取記憶體、快閃記憶體等，... 全球第七大DRAM Module廠，2009年市佔率約4.4%，市場結構為內銷佔28%、亞洲佔34%、歐洲佔24%、美洲14%。"
  From Google Translate: "Apacer Technology was founded in 1997 and is mainly engaged in the manufacturing and sales of memory modules. Its products include DRAM Modules, flash memory related products (such as flash memory cards, flash disks, and consumer storage controllers). , embedded flash memory modules, destructible multimedia storage devices), dynamic random access memory, flash memory, etc., ... Currently, the company is the seventh largest DRAM Module manufacturer in the world, with a market share of approximately 4.4% in 2009. The market structure is domestic sales accounting for 28%, Asia 34%, Europe 24%, and Americas 14%."
14. Product reviews:
  1. Chuenprasaeng, Paisal (2003-09-07). "pacer Audio steno Bp300: Apace sets the pace for tunes". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
    The review notes: "Apacer Audio Steno BP300 is a beautifully designed three-in-one device capable of playing digital music, recording and serving as a mobile hard disk. Despite all these features, it has a reasonable price of only Bt4,000."
  2. Yap, Nigel (2002-04-11). "Portable storage media for PCs and notebooks". New Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
    The review notes: "All in all, the Apacer Handy Drive is a useful device to have around, especially if you are tired of floppy drives. It is portable, small, and can hold quite a a good deal of data. This is especially so if you are to purchase the one-gigabyte (GB) version of the Apacer Handy Drive which will cost RM3,000. The setback is when you want to transfer files to machines running on Windows 98 and below as you would need to have the driver files."
  3. "The road warrior's CD writer continues to grow apace: Slow down". British Journal of Photography. Vol. 150, no. 7432. 2003-06-04. p. 11. ProQuest 1673730224.
    The review notes: "As things stand, with a price tag of just under £200 (before VAT) the Apacer is attractively positioned, but not exceptionally so. It is therefore significant to report that the drive comes with its own padded case, which is a definite bonus. Although a CompactFlash card was mentioned above, the drive has a six-type card reader that also accepts MMC/SD, Memory Stick, ...One observation that I had not come across until I tried the Apacer was the incompatibility that appears to exist between older CD writers and the latest high speed discs, but not vice versa. So whereas my own La Cie drive, which has an 18x maximum write speed, was uncomfortable with 48x TDK discs, the Apacer, despite only being able to write at up to 24x, was perfectly contented."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Apacer (Chinese: 宇瞻科技股份有限公司) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to get a second (or third or fourth) opinion on these newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources found by Cunard. Mccapra (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per newly finded sources; the page is notable --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 08:48, 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 speedy keep‎. SK2/SK4, sock nom. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ikkjutt Jammu

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

This article has many wrong and disputed information like IkkJutt Jammu is different organisation in Jammu And ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal is different from it. Both organisation have officially different different social accounts and websites.pls delete it. Nishalover — Preceding undated comment added 10:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural close, sockpuppetry and no valid rationale for deletion, same as last AFD by another sock of this master: see SPI for details. Wikishovel (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it Mr. Wikishovel, You+don't know anything about this organization. You are a stubborn person who doesn't know anything about this organization. You are prejudiced I am from Jammu Kashmir and know more about this organization than you. There is much more incorrect information in this article. It has been given. Nishalover (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The sources already in the article suffice to meet the GNG. If nom's claims about the article's inaccuracies are correct then fixing them is a matter of ordinary editing. Take it to the talk page, not to AfD. Central and Adams (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Problem is, this article is with wrong redirection like Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal,Ankur Sharma (politician). Nishalover (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FIXIT. Central and Adams (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many organizations in the local language of Jammu that have the same name. The problem with this article is that this article is about political Party whose name is IkkJutt Jammu.Apart from this is an Ekjut Jammu Party whose name has been changed to Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal.

These two are different .But this article has redirected Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal to which is wrong.The article has a website Added (Ekam4Sanatan) Accordingly this also the name of Ekjut Jammu Party has changed. Not of IkkJutt Jammu.Delete the article if not

~~So the wrong Redirection should be removed from the article so that the confusion will end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HinduJat (talk • contribs) 06:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 18:42, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WJPW-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and West Virginia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to have mostly rebroadcast other stations. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No separate notability from either of its parent stations, one of which was itself deleted as non-notable. Another remnant of how loose the inclusion "standards" were in this topic area in 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television stations in West Virginia#Low-power stations. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 02:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWVW-LD

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and West Virginia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Station never originated a moment of original programming whatsoever. Nate • (chatter) 18:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to List of television stations in West Virginia#Low-power stations: it is mentioned there, so an {{R to list entry}} is a relatively-valid alternative to deletion. Not completely opposed to deletion either, though; there is only so much one can say — or expect any significant coverage of — a low-power station only known to carry full-time national services. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 27 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, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. WP:SNOW keep, withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Hershel Layton

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

I tried to do WP:BEFORE, but it seems like this is the only sigcov [50] for this character. Meanwhile, others were just from game reviews with the same name, including the current sources used in the receptions section. Unfortunately, we need more to pass WP:GNG threshold. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Video games. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I almost immediately found this source talking about Layton's name being an unusual one for a protagonist, the use of his name as a title (which they identified as a relative rarity in modern games), and how he differs from a typical protagonist. This doesn't fulfill WP:THREE, but just from that quick search and the source provided, I strongly believe that any deeper search would come up with more. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the Eurogamer article Greenish Picke! linked and the Siliconera article that Cukie Gherkin found, Tablet has an article, "The Summer's Hottest Video Game Is About a Scholar Named Hershel", that foregrounds coverage of the character over the video game, particularly how being named "Hershel" makes the character a distinctly Jewish gentleman. "Three best sources" is an essay rather than a guideline or policy, but for what it's worth this demonstrates there are three solid sources for the character's notability. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe the Eurogamer, Siliconera, and Tablet sources puts us at WP:THREE. Could definite use a trim of the in-universe story appearances stuff, and an expansion of the reception with these sources, but overall that's clean up stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe the sources presented demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I believed the 3 sources above should be enough. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WSSS-LP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ohio. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hard to imagine any significant coverage of a low-power station only known to have carried The Box and MTV2. A remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guatemalan Dogo

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

Only managed to find trivial mentions of the breed being included in lists of banned breeds, I did ask on Wikiproject Guatemala about possible Spanish sources but I've realised that the project is quite inactive. I'm hoping someone familiar with Spanish will be able to confirm if general notability is met with Spanish sources or not. If notability cannot be established I'm in favour of a redirect to list of dog breeds Traumnovelle (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Guatemala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I feel that this AfD might result in a soft delete as a result of expiring.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 00:59, 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 merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Hayatabad suicide bombing

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

The 2 sources provided are from time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/basically redirect to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017, Pakistan has a lot of terrorism and is hard to search for sources for so if there are actually later sources in Urdu I would not oppose it being an article again someday (but I highly doubt that is the case). PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 17 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) 02:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, searching for the events bring up other similar events before it. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Moldova women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liuba Dragomir

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

Redirect to List of Moldova women's international footballers as I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Moldova. JTtheOG (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect Traumnovelle (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Moldova women's international footballers due to subject's lack of WP:GNG. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Saint Louis University (Philippines)#Academics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

School of Computing and Information Sciences, Saint Louis University, Baguio

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

Non-notable subject. May need to be redirected to Saint Louis University (Philippines). Sanglahi86 (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saint_Louis_University_(Philippines)#Academics per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:56, 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 without prejudice against creation of a Cahan & Associates article, if properly sourced, with the content of the deleted page as a starting point for the draft. Owen× ☎ 11:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Cahan

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

Fails WP:ARCHITECT and WP:BASIC. The two external links are broken/outdated. No inline citations to any claims. Article is written like a resume. Edit history indicates COI. News search/scholar is minimal. Recommend delete. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and California. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely fails WP:ARCHITECT and WP:BASIC. No sourcing whatsoever. Does indeed read like a resume, but in an unfocused way. Just a rambling stream of what this individual did with their various interests. — Maile (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No hits in Google for this person; this reads like a personal web page. Not suitable for wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Cahan & Associates. The design firm he founded is definitely notable. Quotes below are the abstracts from ProQuest.

Baggerman, Lisa (1999). "Annuals with style". How. 14 (2): 142. ProQuest 233342555.
Pruzan, Todd (1999). "Hungry minds". Print. 53 (3). ProQuest 231014590. San Francisco's Cahan & Associates, a graphics design firm, is profiled. Cahan & Associates has won numerous design awards and consistently produces standout pieces.
Hall, Peter (1999). "Printed matter". ID: The International Design Magazine. 46 (6): 46. ProQuest 214751639. Bill Cahan has once again proven himself to be "the Steven Spielberg of annual reports" with the creation of Cahan & Associates extraordinary paperback-sized annual report for voice technology company General Magic.
McCarthy, Robert (1999). "Against the grain". Photo District News. 19 (4): 121–123. ProQuest 202872273. Bill Cahan, creative director and principal at Cahan and Associates in San Francisco, incorporates photojournalistic essays into commissioned brochures, catalogues and annual reports. His design firm has won numerous awards.
Heller, Steven (2000). "I Am Almost Always Hungry". Print. 53 (3). ProQuest 231024970. Heller reviews "I Am Almost Always Hungry" by Cahan & Associates
Kidd, Chip (2000). "I Am Almost Always Hungry". ID: The International Design Magazine. 47 (2): 112. ProQuest 214755886. Kidd reviews "I Am Almost Always Hungry" by Cahan & Associates

Jfire (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a review of recently located sources and the suggestion of turning this biography into a company article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 00:56, 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 redirect‎ to Vodacom#"Please Call Me". The content is retained in case editors want to reorient this article to be about the court case instead of being a BIO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nkosana Makate

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

Product of WP:BLP1E. Yes, the subject has been making the news in the past few months but this is all just 15 minutes of fame. WP:ATD, a redirect to Vodacom#"Please Call Me" would make sense. dxneo (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Technology, Africa, and South Africa. dxneo (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this case been in the news for years, not months. It has been extensively covered in WP:RS for that time. So the nomination description of it as “15 minutes of fame” is inaccurate. Makate may, or may not be notable in terms of WP:BLP1E but the case almost certainly is. Park3r (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Park3r, the case may be notable. However, I don't think Nkosana Makate is, the article is composed of this particular case only. Opening statement says "…is a South African who proposed the "Buzz" idea to Vodacom", no description nor WP:SIGCOV, and back to the nom, this is a clear BLP1E. Until relevant sources are brought to light, I think redirecting the article to Vodacom is the way to go. dxneo (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure I understand the deletion rationale here. The case is definitely notable and as much as Nkosana Makate may not be notable but he definitely deserves a mention in the case because after all he is the central figure to the case. Also, seeing that most articles on Wikipedia are about Europe and U.S and there is a serious lack of African content (including content on languages) I think it would have been wise for you Dineo to be bold fix the issues on this article and go on to translate it to your mother tongue than tag it for speedy deletion. Wikimedia ZA is there to support African Wikimedian like yourself to increase African content and languages on Wikipedia. Please reach out to me on bobby.shabangu@wikimedia.org.za to talk more on how we can support you. Bobbyshabangu _talk 18:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bobbyshabangu, yes he may be the central figure but this is pure WP:BLP1E (meaning he's known for one event only) which is the deletion rationale here. I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion if there was something I could do to improve it. Nkosana Makate is already mentioned on Vodacom#Please Call Me. Note that your comment does not support your "keep" !vote in any way. dxneo (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. As I read the "Keep" vote, the editor is rejecting the deletion nomination without arguing the specific points of it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vodacom#"Please Call Me". I find the nominator's argument that this is a WP:BLP1E situation convincing. Jfire (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 00:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vodacom as per nom, not enough here for a standalone page.-KH-1 (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as suggested above seems fine. One small paragraph covering the individual should be enough. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Makate v Vodacom or similar. The case meets WP:GNG, having generated extensive WP:SIGCOV over a sustained period in WP:RS and extensive legal commentary in journals, and made it to the Constitutional Court. Park3r (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vodacom#"Please Call Me" per nom. BLP1E, fails WP:SIRS, nothing found with SIGCVO addressing the subject directly and indepth that would indidicate this is anything other than a BLP1E. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 15:39, 12 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. If some editor wants to work on a Draft version of this article, you can contact me or inquire at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore at the 2026 Asian Games

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. It's still too early for this article to exist. Created by the same user who created Vietnam at the 2026 Asian Games which I also nominated for deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Singapore. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. Frank Anchor 00:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Draft Traumnovelle (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Frank. S5A-0043^Talk 08:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck above after remembering the 6 month rule for draftspace. Delete. S5A-0043^Talk 14:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way WP:TOOSOON. In 6 months time, it will still be too soon, and so I object to draftifying this as draftspace is not an indefinite holding area. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly. It is very reasonable to have some level of information about a country's participation in international competition two years ahead of time. Therefore, drafspace would be the exact opposite of an indefinite holding area If this proves not to be the case, the draft can easily be deleted in October 2024. Frank Anchor 15:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For most events like this, the qualifying tournaments will be at most a year before the event i.e. in 2025. Unless there is evidence that there are 2026 Asian Games qualifiers this year, and so we'll know some qualified Singaporean competitors in 6 months time, then draftspace is not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly non-encyclopedic. The current entry contains nothing of value. The desire to create articles way ahead of time needs to be stamped out. It's an unhealthy "I was here first" culture which does not add value to Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per all above. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: I strongly oppose draftifying, since it will still be TOOSOON in 6 months time, as Joseph2302 states. Deletion is definitely preferrable. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, opinion divided between editors advocating Draftification and those arguing for Deletion. This might come down to No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I contend that "Draftify per TOOSOON" does not hold water in that it will still be too soon for 12–15 more months. There is nothing worth retaining in that the article contains no information other than a circular definition of the article title: "Singapore at the 2026 Asian Games means that Singapore will compete at the 2026 Asian Games". Geschichte (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per all above. Svartner (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 00:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, as a preferable WP:ATD. If there isn't information added to the article in 6 months time, it can easily and with little effort be deleted. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftifying would be completely pointless, since there isn't any valuable content to preserve. Better to delete now than later. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a case of WP:TOOSOON and this will also be the case in the near future, so no need for draftification. Let'srun (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete for Pete's sake. It's a one sentence article which will outdated if they do compete, and false if they don't. There is nothing here to save for a draft, unless you think it's too much trouble to recreate an infobox. It isn't. Mangoe (talk) 03:29, 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sindhuja Rajaraman (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darcy Breen}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalil Rahme}}