Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 28: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:44, 28 April 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 27	April 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Umbrella fund

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

Failing notability that contains a single source only. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve the article a lot. The concept of “umbrella fund” or “fund with sub-funds” is certainly notable in UK law. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. So meets WP:WEBCRIT. Contributor892z (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:03, 5 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) 02:22, 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 speedy keep‎. (non-admin closure) Nomination withdrawn, all !votes to keep (non-admin closure) Polygnotus (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volker Mosblech

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

A member of the 18th Bundestag. Page fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO and lacks any independent nongovernment sources. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 12:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and Germany. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 12:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NPOL presumes notability for members of national legislatures. There's quite a bit of coverage in the German media of his death. AusLondonder (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this proposal is meaningless. per WP:NPOL. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: This nomination was meaningless. The page does pass WP:NPOL and there has been coverage in the German media of his death. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 17:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Only the nominator can "withdraw" as such, but there is (and should not be) absolutely no chance of this getting deleted. Geschichte (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am the original nominator. I just got my username changed per WP:RENAME, while the AfD was active. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 18:53, 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. Star Mississippi 15:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of alternative names for oceans

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY PepperBeast (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neocorelight (Talk) 15:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like most exonym lists. An article about different etymologies of names for the respective oceans could be interesting. —Tamfang (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn, all !votes to keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boudewijn de Geer

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

Page fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 12:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 12:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - once again (see also the AfD about his son), this is a poor nomination where there has clearly been no attempt to search for sources. A very quick Google search brings up so many sources, see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (I could go on and on). Clearly a notable figure. Giant Snowman 13:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It feels a little disingenuous to claim notability is clearly established based on a number of references which primarily relate to his recent death, rather than asserting a notable playing career. I suspect you would have been more challenged to find that quantity quickly prior to the last day or so. That said, multiple posthumous coverage may point to someone who was notable, otherwise why would multiple outlets report it, although I'm not quite as comfortable searching historic non-English media to know this confidently. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His recent death is making it hard to find other sources, but his death has been covered in seemingly every major Dutch newspaper, there were sources present before his death, and this is somebody who was a professional player in the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Australia, who later also became a coach. As I said - clearly notable, and this and the simultaneous AFD about his son (another notable sports figure) shows a lack of knowledge or effort from the nominator. WP:BEFORE was obviously not followed. Giant Snowman 13:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting you're wrong about notability, I just felt you could have offered some context when declaring that "google search brings up so many sources", as there is a very obvious reason that's now the case. But like I said before, usually multiple media outlets reporting the death of a sportsperson would indicate that person is notable. In my opinion, you can't reasonably assert this as being clear or obvious, as you did, just from death news reports within 48hrs of said passing. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also found and added multiple pre-death sources. As I said - the nominator patently did not attempt any form of search before rushing to AFD. Giant Snowman 15:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unclear why this article was nominated. Neither fails SPORTCRIT or the GNG. The nomination does fail NEXIST and BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are articles for every other minor, forgettable sports thick. Why not this one? Kelisi (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is not a reason to keep an article. Giant Snowman 17:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per @GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: This nomination was meaningless. The page does pass WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT and research proves his notability. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 17:55, 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 speedy keep‎. (non-admin closure) Nomination withdrawn, all !votes to keep (non-admin closure) Polygnotus (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike de Geer

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

A Dutch professional footballer. Page fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 12:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly no attempt at a BEFORE, giving a very quick Google for this guy brings up 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Clearly a notable figure. Giant Snowman 12:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:BASIC for me on sources added by GS. Govvy (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unclear why this article was nominated. Neither fails SPORTCRIT or the GNG. The nomination does fail NEXIST and BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per @GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: This nomination was meaningless. The page does pass WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT and research proves his notability. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 17:55, 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. Ineligible, yes, but no one is arguing for retention Star Mississippi 15:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renzo Vitale

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

Highly promotional piece written by a UPE. PROD declined. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Italy. UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the subject has had an ordinary career, with no indication of encyclopedic notability. — Biruitorul ^Talk 12:46, 21 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 12:16, 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. ✗plicit 01:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KELM-LP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Nevada. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:47, 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, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems like a remnant of the looser inclusion standards in this topic area in 2010 — the only known/discussed programming was a full-time national service. There's probably little-to-no significant coverage here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 27 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 12:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Wcquidditch. Samoht27 (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London. as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 15:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Antigua and Barbuda, London

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

Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources; sole source is a government list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and Antigua and Barbuda. AusLondonder (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London, which contains most of the same information so is more helpful to readers than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article merely confirms it exists. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is deleting better than redirecting? Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 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 Japan–United Kingdom relations. Star Mississippi 14:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of the United Kingdom, Osaka

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

Consular office lacking sufficient secondary sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Japan, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge'. There is plenty of encyclopaedic information in this article that shouldn't be just thrown away. If additional secondary sources can't be found (remember some are likely to be in Japanese and/or predate Google) then it should be merged to a broader article, maybe Japan-United Kingdom relations. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:ORG. Any relevant material should be in Japan–United Kingdom relations. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Japan–United Kingdom relations. Not enough notability for a full page. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 12:36, 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 Kosovo-United Kingdom relations. as a viable ATD since it's unlikely any further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 14:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Pristina

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

Lacking in-depth coverage in secondary sources specifically about the embassy. Sources are primary sources, deprecated sources and Twitter. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Kosovo, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kosovo-United Kingdom relations, which I'm surprised doesn't contain this useful information. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 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. which does not preclude a talk page discussion to identify a target to which to merge Star Mississippi 02:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvalu House

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

An honorary consulate located in a residential house. No suitable secondary sources, only sources are a government diplomatic list and Embassypages.com. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of Tuvalu, where most of the encyclopaedic information already is, or List of diplomatic missions in London, which is probably a better destination for someone searching for this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We cannot close without consensus on a target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is deletion better for readers than merging? Thryduulf (talk) 07:50, 10 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. Owen× ☎ 00:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montserrat–United Kingdom relations

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

Despite the title the article is primarily about the representative office of Montserrat in London. Lacking secondary sources to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The current article is poor, but I'm certain that the topic is notable: after all, we're talking about the relations of the United Kingdom with one of its overseas territories! There should be some space somewhere for encyclopedic coverage of how the central government of the United Kingdom relates to (the government of) one of its overseas territories.

At the back of my mind, a history section could be easily constructed from existing content at Montserrat. From a Geography class case study in my school days, I remember the UK government's donations to Montserrat following its volcanic eruption received quite some coverage. Also, this (non-independent) webpage from the UK Government can point to other important events or episodes worth mentioning.

Nonetheless, three concerns prevent me from !voting Keep:

Firstly, would any such article simply be a WP:COATRACK? We would need to find some reliable, independent sources that discuss the topic qua topic, rather than a miscellany of "here's how the UK and Montserrat interact with each other".
Secondly, I notice other BOTs don't seem to have a "BOT–United Kingdom relations" article (cf. Foreign relations of the Falkland Islands redirects to British Overseas Territories#Foreign affairs; Foreign relations of Bermuda redirects to Bermuda#International relations. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign relations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, closed as Delete in March 2015).
Finally, I'm not convinced this is the best article title for the topic. It suggests that Montserrat is a sovereign state, rather than a self-governing territory, and that feels odd to me. And while I'd happily support a redirect or merge as a WP:ATD, I can't find any appropriate target.

So, my instinct is that there is a notable topic here, but the current article doesn't do it justice, and I don't think the article title does either. I'm not sure if the topic merits a standalone article, and there's no obvious alternative to deletion. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Representative of Montserrat, London as is the case for other British Overseas Territories Dn9ahx (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those other representative office articles have been deleted, others are at AfD now. AusLondonder (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television stations in Missouri#LPTV stations. as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 14:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KRFT-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Missouri. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in Missouri#LPTV stations: I suppose it's possible that this 32-year-and-counting station has garnered some of the now-required significant coverage, but a station that mainly carries minor digital subchannel networks, and holds no area cable coverage and is largely only known to have carried full-time national services tends not to get that much (if any) coverage. This is another remnant of the looser "standards" of 2006 and no longer requires anything more than an {{R to list entry}} as an alternative to deletion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2015 Pan and Parapan American Games broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to nobody but the small minority of ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are announcements and does not help to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE and no evidence it meets any criteria suggested at WP:LISTN. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamnuska Mountain Adventures

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

Non-notable mountain guiding company in Canada (per N:CORP). There are some scraps of articles in local old Canadian newspapers, but nothing nationally or internationally (and zero SIGCOV anywhere). Some famous Canadian climbers have worked there, but the company never appears in any of main climbing RS (per WP:NCLIMB). Article had a lot of unreferenced promotional material, which I removed, but ultimately it has no future on Wikipedia. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, and Canada. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little of the content in the article is referenced or supported by reliable sources. Of the 6 references provided, 3 of the links are broken or the original articles have now been taken off-line. It fails on the basis of verifiability Sadly what is little sourced material is left does not qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Dfadden (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What content do you believe should be referenced? Jdemontigny (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, the entire Sponsorship and Community Involvement section contains only 4 refs, 2 of which are dead links, another points only to a homepage for the John Lauchlan award and makes no mention of Yamnuska Mountain Adventures and the final one makes only passing reference to the organisation sponsoring a $500 prize in a local book contest - hardly in-depth, significant coverage!

The list of issues is a very long one - history section talks about changes of ownership and board appointments with no sources cited; guides section makes generic, unreferenced claims about pioneering new routes through the Rockies; a throwaway line after a referenced claim that they were the second largest employer of certified guides in 1993 that says "it is expected that this is true today" - really? How do we check this anyway as the original source is a 30 year old off-line newspaper article that you'd likely need a Canadian library or subscription to an archive service to verify.

There is a large amount unencyclopedic promotional content throughout the article that likey violates WP:PROMO (eg. "The very exacting standards to which Yamnuska Mountain Adventure's guides are held should not obscure the fact that the guides are the heart and soul of the company." or "Individuals, groups, corporations and military organizations from all over the world continue to choose Yamnuska Mountain Adventures as their provider. Yamnuska Mountain Adventures has become known as the leader in the industry with excellent program delivery, high levels of risk management and excellent customer service." Once again, neither of these statements are supported by any sources, let alone reliable ones. Dfadden (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see this stay up as I think Yamnuska has a long (47 years) history and has had many touch points within the Canadian mountaineering community that are worth knowing about. You're right it needs some work with the references. Here is one for the John Lauchlan award with Yamnuska listed to start: https://www.alpineclubofcanada.ca/community/financial-grants/john-lauchlan-award/

How do you suggest I reference or find sources that we have military contracts?

You seem pretty motivated to delete this content but I would suggest that working to bring this to the right level would be in Wikipedia's best interest. Jdemontigny (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you feel strongly about the importance of this company. I don't have any personal investment either way. Im not motivated to delete content arbitrarily, but afyer objectively assessing it against wikipedia's content policies, the case to delete it far outweighs the case to keep it in my view. The link you provided to the John Lauchlan award doesnt actually mention the company, but has its logo as a sponsor. Under Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines that are the basis for what should and should not be included in the encyclopedia, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I'm failing to see how the inclusion of the company's logo on a list of award sponsors is anything but trivial.

As to your question about finding sources related to military contracts, if you cannot locate any, this fails the general notability guidelines of WP:Verifiability - if you cannot find a reliable source that supports a claim, then that claim shouldn't be published in an encyclopedia. There are many companies with Defense contracts and partnerships all over the world that are well documented in industry publications (for example this article, which provides independent, significant coverage [8]).

If you think you can fix the article to an standard that satisfies the notability guidelines, you can request it is moved to the draft space where you can edit it, however I'm slight concerned that you said "How do you suggest I reference or find sources that we have military contracts?" This implies you have some connection to this company that may represent a Conflict of Interest. If this is the case you should declare it upfront and click on the blue link to familiarise yourself with the policy around COI edits. Dfadden (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know why Yamnuska Mountain Adventures would be considered a non-notable mountain guiding company in Canada? It is still Canada's largest, non-mechanized Guiding company. I think this company should remain on Wikipedia and not be deleted. Jdemontigny (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a company to be notable on Wikipedia, it must meet the criteria of WP:NCORP, which requires quality independent sources to give significant covergage on the subject (ad not people who worked for the subject etc.).
The issue is that I could find no such sources - not even in main line climbing media (per WP:NCLIMB). If such sources exist, you can paste them here (just put the web link inside hard brackets like this), and they can be considered. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(https://mountfitnesstraining.com/learning-climb-not-just-young-people/)

(https://explore-mag.com/Mountain-guides-the-investment-you-cant-afford-not-to-make/)

(https://calgaryguardian.com/wild-jobs-mountaineering-guide/)

(https://www.wildly.ca/articles/7-women-only-adventures-in-the-canadian-rockies)

(https://achatscanada.canada.ca/fr/occasions-de-marche/contrats-octroyes/w3666-19h003/001/cal-003)

(https://www.landrovercalgary.com/made-for-the-mountains-week-2.html)

(https://www.instagram.com/seanisaacguiding/p/CiiPUHAJ7ht/)

(https://www.banfflakelouise.com/blog/summer-itineraries-4-days-adrenaline-pumping-adventures-banff-national-park)

(https://outpostmagazine.com/what-exactly-is-mountaineering-heres-how-yamnuska-defines-the-sport/)

(https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/novice-back-country-skiers-boarders-and-snowshoers-learn-avalanche-safety-1.5193000?cache=mxzpofjaup%3FautoPlay%3Dtrue%3FclipId%3D89530)

(https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/spring-avalanche-conditions-1.4637376)

(https://www.ctvnews.ca/lifestyle/banff-national-park-s-mount-temple-a-taxing-terrific-trek-1.4429713?cache=%3FclipId%3D64268&src=sdkpreparse)

(https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/the-mountains-are-unforgiving-climber-deaths-a-reminder-of-scrambling-risks-says-mountain-guide-1.4793259)

(https://www.thecragandcanyon.ca/opinion/columnists/bubba-smoke-and-politics)

(https://www.mountainviewtoday.ca/beyond-local/caf-conducts-adventure-training-around-canmore-mountains-3444173)

(https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/peak-perfection-alberta-rockies-rise-as-popular-ice-climbing-destination-1.6361832)
(https://globalnews.ca/news/945924/k-country-avalanche-sparks-call-for-caution-on-ice-climbs/) Jdemontigny (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having read and considered the links provided above, I am starting to form a view that this company is at least somewhat notable. However, it needs a lot of work by an experienced editor (with no COI or connection to the company) to address the many issues it has and ensure it folows the WP:NPOV guideline.

Most of the articles linked provide only trivial coverage, or are focussed on employees and directors, rather than the company itself, but I think this speaks to @Jdemontigny's lack of familiarity with Wikipedia content policies (and potential COI). Things like Instagram and blog posts by anonymous users are hardly WP:RS. That said, I feel the 2x CTV articles and the Outpost Magazine article do provide considerable depth and verify some of the Yamnuska article's claims. It will take a lot of work to bring the article up to standard and this probably should be done in the draftspace. I would support Draftify although I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to volunteer and it's not a particular area of interest for me. Dfadden (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most businesses (and corporations) generate an online presence as part of their commercial activities. That is why WP:NCORP requires "significant coverage (addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth)" on the corporation. None of the above references are about the "Yamnuska Mountain Adventures" as a significant topic (and many are not really sources that would be acceptable to Wikipedia), but rather mention them in relation to other topics. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In an effort to give this one the benefit of the doubt, I went searching for further RS... I found an academic publication on google scholar here: [9]

Co-author of this document is Jesse De Montigny, of Yamnuska Mountain Adventures. Noting that a significant contributor to this article who has also contributed to this AfD has the username user:jdemontigny and their total contribution to Wikipedia has been edits to this article or the AfD, I feel there is a clear conflict of interest and I am now firmly in favour of delete! While I do think there may be enough out there to prove the company is at least somewhat notable and salvage a very basic version of the article, I feel the only fair way to achieve that now would be with WP:TNT and a robust, consensus driven AfC. Dfadden (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every company will easily meet WP:NEXIST, by the nature of their activities. Therefore, because of the promotional aspect of companies on Wikipedia (and this article has a lot of promotional material on it when I came to it), the notability of WP:NCORP is stringently applied imho. Having gone through the sources above, it is clear that in this case, a Wikipedia article for 'Yamnuska Mountain Adventures' would be the biggest plank in its notability (hence the conflicted editor working on it), which is the wrong way around. ( Aszx5000 (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing a bit of digging into it. I didn't write the original content but did do a bunch of edits to add some more modern content given my knowledge of the business. This was the first time I had contributed to a Wikipedia page so clearly some learning needed. Could the article not just be reverted to the original, removing my edits if having me write them is a conflict of interest? 2604:3D09:2384:900:3D76:98E:C35A:6AC2 (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Primeira Liga broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are announcements and does not help to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Portugal. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Football broadcast in India

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are announcements and does not help to assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and India. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: There are some sources at the article AusLondonder (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing significant that I can see... Giant Snowman 16:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there are sources. What do they do other than indicate those are evidences they are providing coverages to sports leagues? Are they helping with the subject's notability? SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Wikipedia is not a TV guide for viewers. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found [10].Esolo5002 (talk) 18:46, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scottish Professional Football League broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are announcments and does not help to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, United Kingdom, and Scotland. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Danish Superliga broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the only source is primary and does not help to assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Denmark. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a directory. Mccapra (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poseidon (fictional ship)

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

Only sourced to the novel itself and the article is only plot with no real-world commentary, besides from its comparison to RMS Queen Mary. Neocorelight (Talk) 09:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Film. Neocorelight (Talk) 09:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like this is not independently notable, but please ping me if good sources are identified. Maybe some of the content could be added to The Poseidon Adventure (novel), although that article is currently only sourced to the book itself. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the commonality between the stories varies wildly so this seems relevant Sansbarry (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Neocorelight (Talk) 01:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only content present is simply brief plot summaries for the book and each of its adaptations, all of which are already covered better at each of their respective pages. Even that extremely small bit of "real-world" information regarding the production of the first movie is already included in that film's article. I am not really finding anything covering the fictional ship as a topic on its own where it would make sense to have a separate article on it, rather than just covering the relevant plot elements on each of the respective articles. I don't really see this as a likely search term at all, but if people would prefer a redirect, I would suggest having the target be the Poseidon (disambiguation) page, where the book and all of its adaptations are already listed. Rorshacma (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. This doesn't have enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply plotcruft and nothing more. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:19, 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. Star Mississippi 02:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atta Soja

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

Does not pass WP:NBOX or GNG. Sources are database entries, press release with the same images, paid articles posted without bylines etc., Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Uganda. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NBOX, WP:ANYBIO, or any other notability criteria. Wanting to be a champion is hardly unique or notable and notability isn't inherited from your coach or who you train with. He's not even mentioned in some of the references. Papaursa (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Phillips (DJ)

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

Reason Sarcastathon (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it doesn’t meet the criteria for notability. 1. Out of 4 references, 2 are links to artist’s own pages. 2 are PR pieces. 2. They have never had any single or album chart in their home country or abroad. 3. Nor have they had a record certified as gold. 4. They’ve never ‘had important coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country’ 5. Not released any albums. 6. Hasn’t been a member of 2 or more notable groups. 7. Hasn’t become one of the most important representatives of a notable style or the most important of the local scene of a city 8 & 9. Hasn’t won any awards 10. Not made music for any notable other media 11. Hasn’t been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network 12. Nor have they been subject of any documentaries etc Sarcastathon (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Sarcastathon (talk) 08:26, 28 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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability in the article and I'm unable to find any significant coverage of him online. InDimensional (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Absent someone wanting to work on it, draftification isn't going to help. If someone is, I'm happy to provide it. Star Mississippi 14:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Kaul (actor)

AfDs for this article:

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

Only one role as lead role, rest are all trivial roles thereby clearly failing WP:GNG. Imsaneikigai (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify: As per Nom. Pri2000 (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the views of Nominator. TheChronikler7 (talk) 16:05, 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.

Iftikhar A. Ayaz

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." No secondary sources at all. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. @AusLondonder: Have added reliable secondary sources to the article now. Request withdrawal of AfD nomination. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources you have added, I'm not sure a single one is actually significant coverage of him as an individual. One source is the Court Circular column in the Daily Telegraph which reports he awarded an Tuvalu Order of Merit to Prince William. Another article is about persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan which name-checks him. I'm not seeing this as meeting WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 14:32, 22 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) 08:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Iftikhar Ayaz easily satisfies criteria #1 of WP:ANYBIO, having received honours from Queen Elizabeth II as both a Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE) and an Officer of the British Empire (OBE). On top of this, Ayaz satisfies WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, including this 2016 feature article published by AllAfrica.com, "Tanzanian Bestowed With Honours by Queen Elizabeth", which covers his entire life in considerable detail, from his early life and emigration from India to Tanzania; to his education in Tanzania and teacher training in Kenya; to his early career as a government education officer in Tanzania; his graduate studies in Britain; his return to Tanzania to found the Tanzanian Commonwealth Society; and his activism as a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. (Please log in to Wikipedia Library to read the full article on ProQuest.) The 2015 article in Rabwah Times, "Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad AYAZ awarded Knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II" covers additional detail about his work with the United Nations. Of course, in addition to all of this, as Honorary Consul for Tuvalu to the United Kingdom, he is frequently quoted on issues including climate change (such as in this 2007 article in Herald on Sunday in New Zealand "BRITAIN Plea to stop atolls sinking into Pacific", plus many others now cited in the article including the brief quotes in The Daily Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal Online. This article was in terrible shape when it was first nominated for deletion, but has been improved considerably (with room for further improvement and expansion), and overall it's quite a remarkable story of a life of a notable living person. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- specifically per Cielquiparle's analysis of criterion #1 of ANYBIO. Central and Adams (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that ANYBIO #1 does not establish notability. WP:ANYBIO states clearly that "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." We still need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:44, 5 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, Daniel (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now adequately sourced for both GNG and ANYBIO1. Ingratis (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La alta escuela

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

I couldn't find sources to show they meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I have found 4 citations and added to the article, including one from Vice. The reliability of VICE is questionable per WP:RSP, however, I believe that would not apply to entertainment and music articles. In addition, the band may meet criteria #7 of WP:MUSICBIO, which says "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city."RolandSimon (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 07:42, 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!} 23:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of IT Training

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No significant coverage in reliable sources could be found either under the name "Institute of IT Training" or its apparent new name "Learning & Performance Institute". I know it's not relevant to notability, but the article reads like an advertisement and is borderline WP:G11 despite having 63 revisions over 14 years. Mz7 (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Mz7 (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A09|(talk) 10:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourcing is insufficient. Reads like an ad article. Cortador (talk) 17:16, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tarang Jain

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

Hard to meet WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting GNG and please read WP:BEFORE Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bakhtar40, as a fairly inexperienced editor (131 edits), you need to read WP:BEFORE, "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources". It is not just the sources actually used in the article that count. A simple Google search for Tarang Jain Varroc (he owns 86%) gives us:

https://www.forbes.com/profile/tarang-jain/?sh=5a0e545f2676

https://www.forbesindia.com/article/big-bet/twinwin-venture-how-tarang-jain-built-a-global-automotive-business/49915/1

https://www.forbesindia.com/article/leaderhip-awards-2013/tarang-jain-taking-risks-to-derisk-varroc/36383/1

https://www.autocarpro.in/feature/varroc-tarang-jain-autocar-professional-3428

https://www.themachinist.in/interviews/2333/investments-help-companies-stay-competitive

https://www.cnbctv18.com/business/companies/varroc-engineering-striving-for-double-digit-margin-by-end-of-fy24-says-cmd-17046041.htm

There are plenty more. And who knows what else in Hindi, etc? Edwardx (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Very reliable sources like forbes have enough coverage on the well known billionaire from India. Google search will also display results with many reliable sources on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. based on presented citations above this person will meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO.Hkkingg (talk) 15:37, 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.

Battle of Ajmer

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

There is no such a battle named "Battle of Ajmer" in any of the WP:RS nor any Historians named a battle as "Battle of Ajmer" between Mher tribe and Ghurids. The article body talks about a conflict between Mher tribe and Ghurids, whereas the infobox describes Rajputs as the belligerents. Neither from the source of R. C Majumdar, nor from Romila Thapar, I could even find a scattered line about this event. The actual event per cited is the prelude of Battle of Kasahrada (1197). The current content could be added into this parent article (edit: it is already present the background section). Fails WP:GNG, and not found any RS calling the event by the name of "Battle of Ajmer". Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Geography, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Very Weak Keep. The sources from Majumdar and Thapar, like ImperialAficionado I too could not verify or find on this Battle and would have opted for delete but the source from Dr Ashoka Srivastav from Department of history at University of Gorakhpur had me hanging from where the page got its attribution from. There is need for improvement on this page and some more detail that is missing or wrong about the battle, siege, and the belligerents. From Srivastav Belligerents were Mhers, many Hindu Rajas, Raja of Nagor, Raja of Nahrwala. It does not say Rajputs. More sources will help too. RangersRus (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is rapidly filling up with made-up Indian battles. Mccapra (talk) 21:22, 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. ✗plicit 00:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Mellor

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

Unref BLP; I couldn't find sources to establish she can meet WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any WP:SIGCOV. Orange sticker (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails NACTOR and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. but I'd argue some verification of its existence should happen before this is REFUNDed Star Mississippi 14:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Figa

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

I could find references to this place as a villa estate, not clear if fit meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. I did not find evidence of notable archaeology. Boleyn (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology, Geography, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reference to a site by this name in Corsica, and am curious where it came from originally. @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: your initial edit summary suggests that you might have been working from a list or database? – Joe (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Co and Fr articles don't list any sources. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 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.

Los Zodiac

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

This was hard to assess, especially as there are varying spellings used. I couldn't find enough to show it meets WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Survived 2005 AfD ([[11]], but standards very different then. Boleyn (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Peru. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peruvian rock:

From this it seems like there is some level of coverage in 2018's Demoler. El rock en el Perú 1965-1975 by Carlos Torres Rotondo
There may be some leads from this: "Very little has been written about the History of Rock in our environment. Only sketches (as some newspapers usually publish) and some studies such as the one done by Jose Miguel Gonzalo Garcia, entitled Development of Youth Music in Peru, give us a brief idea of this whole matter. But the closest thing to a treatise on the so-called underground current or alternative music comes from the university works of which I mention (but always from a giraffe perspective, based more on journalistic data or conversations with subways, than on personal experiences), the job that my friend Miguel Lescano did at the beginning of the 90s, or the Underground Rock -10 Years of Wild Operas by Alvaro Olano Dextre. All of them are the first formal attempts to capture a history of underground rock. Someone will try to object to me by saying, what about Pedro Cornejo's book? I'm sorry to contradict you little brother, but the Game without Borders - Approaches to Contemporary Music that Pedro published in 1994 is not considered, not even by Pedro Cornejo himself, a total work, at least it is not what many (like me) expected from Pedro Cornejo Guinassi, graduate in Philosophy, professor at La Católica, participant in the first years of underground rock, editor and collaborator of alternative publications and other publications."
es-wiki does not have an article for them, and nor are they actually covered at es:Rock_del_Perú or es:Historia_del_rock_en_el_Perú
They are not the Los Zodiacs from Getxo in Spain who had a song in a Pepsi ad (see this from El Correo)

I can't see what's in Torres, etc, but there's otherwise a dearth of reliable sourcing for the band other than being one of a number of early 60s Peruvian rock bands. Unless adequate info is discovered in Torres or other RS, redirect with retention of history and categories seems the sensible option. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, is there more support for a Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 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. Star Mississippi 14:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Published Reporter

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

Fails WP:GNG. Some of the references don't even mention the subject and the rest are either unreliable or not in-depth. CNMall41 (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and Delaware. CNMall41 (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The publication has gone through significant changes from what I know and for the record, I'm going to second the suggestion for deletion. Fishnagles (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 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. ✗plicit 01:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of EuroLeague broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 21 April 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!} 05:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a directory. Mccapra (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication WP:LISTN is met: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources...—Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Sports broadcasting contracts in Portugal

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the only one source are nothing but announcement, not asserting notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Portugal. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a directory. Mccapra (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:13, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Brazil

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:NLIST. Sports contracts are dynamic with broadcasters, even more so with the entry of streaming. This list doesn't seem relevant. Svartner (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these article seem to me like the lists of airline destinations that often appear at AfD. Sourced to primary sources or routine announcements, essentially directories, and unclear whether they are updated regularly enough even to be useful as directories. Mccapra (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I find the arguments to delete, especially the nomination and Mccapra, the most persuasive in this discussion. Would be open to draftying upon request. Daniel (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen University

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

I know it is unusual to delete a University - but I cannot find any online information about the University (except the bare fact that it is on Yemeni University lists - although I am not sure how old these lists are). It appears no longer to have a website. Links are either not orking or provide no helpful info. No obvious lkinks to anything else. The wiki page suggests the unbioversity is strong in nutrition - but https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9517972/ suggests it is not on the 2022 list of Yemeni universities awarding decrees in nutrition. Perhaps it has changed its name or amalgamated? Newhaven lad (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Yemen. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is entirely unsourced (general external links are used as reference) and filled with original research. Before reaching a conclusion whether to delete or keep I think it'd be fair if someone draftified it and use sources then we could've judged it based on it's merit. But if it stands as is, then delete seems impending. X (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It exists and it is a university. The poor sourcing is due to the language barrier. Desertarun (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regular university. Agreeing with Desertarun. gidonb (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input. "It exists" is not a valid argument in favor of retention, especially when we haven't verified that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a private university it needs to meet WP:NCORP which it definitely doesn’t. I’ve searched in Arabic and got no news hits at all and nothing much on a general search. Nothing to suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comment above. Okmrman (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Switch Scotland

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

This article about a digital radio multiplex has been tagged for notability since 2012 and I'm unable to find much in the way of SIGCOV to assert notability - just articles about stations opening and closing on the multiplex signal, which are primarily about the stations and not the multiplex. There is !precedent for redirecting these articles to the article for their parent company [12]. Most of this article consists of unsourced WP:OR about stations being added, deleted and moved around on various digital radio multiplexes. Flip Format (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Flip Format (talk) 13:23, 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!} 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No issue with notability, and the article contains a history, stations broadcast, transmitter information and references. Rillington (talk) 00:19, 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 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. Star Mississippi 14:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Kwasi Debrah

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

The subject is not notable, WP:REFBOMB with sources written by the subject or the company he works for, 95% of the sources emanated from JoyNews where he works. As seen [here] and [here, ]. There are even cases where the sources directly came from the subject as seen [here]. Apart from that, most of the sources are not Reliable and are not Independent Ibjaja055 (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Journalism, Poetry, and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 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!} 07:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All these anomalies are corrected Gyanford (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read the article and checked some of the refs. He doesn't appear to have led a notable life, we're even below 1E. Desertarun (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States#Consular districts by missions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Seattle

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

Consular office that fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Lacking in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Sources at the article are mostly irrelevant, such as an opinion piece in a newspaper about Taiwan and China and a transcript of President Carter's address about recognition of China. AusLondonder (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Taiwan, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete nothing to suggest notability for this topic. Mccapra (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States#Consular districts by missions, where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a defacto consulate which is less notable than an embassy. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States#Consular districts by missions per Cunard as WP:ATD. Redirects are cheap. Jumpytoo Talk 04:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cunard a# ATD. Mccapra (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for supporting a redirect as an alternative to deletion! Cunard (talk) 11:27, 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.

Embassy of Cape Verde, Washington, D.C.

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

Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources and no in-depth coverage available. AusLondonder (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Ivory Coast, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Babcock-Macomb House, its location. The fact that it is now the embassy is stated there. Mangoe (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 5 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, Daniel (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Babcock–Macomb House per Mangoe. Excellent example of a subject that benefits from consolidation with an article covering the same topic. BD2412 T 16:57, 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 redirect‎ to List of television stations in North Carolina#LPTV stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WNCR-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in North Carolina#LPTV stations: The article at least claims that there at least was some local programming (a newscast), but that statement has been there since the article's creation, and the only real "expansion" since then has been to the usual solely-database-sourced permastub of the type that is finally being rejected in this topic area. Maybe there's more significant coverage out there, but by and large this is another remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2006 that no longer warrants anything more than an {{R to list entry}} as an alternative to deletion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 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 redirect‎ to List of television stations in North Carolina#LPTV stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WHFL-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in North Carolina#LPTV stations: It isn't quite the type of all-national programming service so many LPTVs are, but I'm not convinced this likely-run-of-the-mill religious station has much significant coverage either. Likely a remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 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.

Haini Wolfgramm

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

Member of a notable band, but per WP:MUSICBIO, not sufficiently notable independent of the band for a separate article. In a WP:BEFORE search, I can only find passing mentions of him in articles about the band. The Grammy nomination was for the band. He and his large family were interviewed on a national TV programme in 1994, and that interview was covered by some other media, but that would appear to be WP:BLP1E, and doesn't quite get him over the line for WP:MUSICBIO. A redirect to the band article could be an alternative to deletion, but I'm bringing it here first for discussion. Wikishovel (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Wikishovel (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Jets (Minnesota band). He has done nothing independently notable outside the band, and the article is simply an attempt to fill space with some tidbits from his personal life. The fact that he owns a small record company could possibly be mentioned briefly at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend doing the same for Eugene Wolfgramm and Elizabeth Wolfgramm, for the exact same reasons. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 5 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, Daniel (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Jets (Minnesota band) as per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 21:33, 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 redirect‎ to Sindh Premier League. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Sindh Premier League

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NEVENT. The tournament doesn't have official status with no lasting effect. Robo^Cric Let's chat 05:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. Robo^Cric Let's chat 05:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Robo^Cric Let's chat 06:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sindh Premier League Not enough coverage for separate season article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sindh Premier League Not enough coverage on its own.Hkkingg (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist–Leninist Centre in Mexico

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

Failure of WP:ORG; the article subject is a small, non-notable organisation. The article has been unsourced for over a decade. I could not find any reliable sources in English, and a translation of the name to Spanish yielded no results either. Yue🌙 04:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

WGBS-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Virginia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is some sourcing which I have added, all from the 1994–98 period. They were on local cable and got coverage from that. Once Cox dropped them, they really drop off in local coverage. I could go either way. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The new sources seem to be enough to say that it at the very least was notable enough in it’s early history to justify keeping it, but due to it being from a very specific point, I’m have to keep it at semi-weak. Danubeball (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it, I decided to say that this station probably does have the coverage to continue being on Wikipedia. Danubeball (talk) 01:54, 10 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The coverage from the 1990s added by Sammi meets the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, nothing in the article or found in BEFORE shows anything meeting WP:SIRS. BEFORE found promo, ads, listings, nothing meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Technical data, fails WP:SIRS	1. "Facility Technical Data for WGBS-LD". Licensing and Management System. Federal Communications Commission.
Mill news about new programming, fails WP:SIRS	2. ^ Harville, Bobbie (November 10, 1994). "Inspirational TV: Genesis TV 7 brings new line of family shows". Daily Press. Newport News, Virginia. p. Y6. Retrieved April 22, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
Mill news about station changing signal	3. ^ Knemeyer, Nelda L. (April 27, 1995). "Genesis TV7 changing signal, adding new markets". Daily Press. Newport News, Virginia. p. N7. Retrieved April 22, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
Mill news about station struggles	4. ^ Jump up to:a b Nicholson, David (May 14, 1998). "Station strruggling [sic] to stay on cable lineup: Hampton owners confer with NAACP". Daily Press. Newport News, Virginia. p. C4. Retrieved April 22, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
Mill news about lineup change	5. ^ Nicholson, David (October 10, 1998). "WPEN burned by Cox decision to change lineup". Daily Press. Newport News, Virginia. p. D1. Retrieved April 22, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
FCC database record	6. ^ "Transfers #170659". Licensing and Management System. Federal Communications Commission. November 22, 2021.
Database record, fails WP:SIRS	7. ^ RabbitEars TV Query for WGBS

// Timothy :: talk 18:00, 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 redirect‎ to South African wireless community networks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretoria Wireless Users Group

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

I was unable to find any mention of this organization anywhere, hence seems to fail WP:ORGCRIT. Virtually all the news about this organization comes from 'mybroadband.co.za', a rather niche trade publication focused on broadband which does not appear in the searches. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and South Africa. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 14 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 04:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South African wireless community networks as ATD. There is a plausible claim of notability in the article but I can’t find sources to support it. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South African wireless community networks: Per ATD. Can be expanded in future if needed from the history preserved under redirect. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arboricultural Association

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

Does not seem to be notable. A search does not reveal any non-trivial coverage of the subject. The only source in the article is primary (the organization's website). XabqEfdg (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. XabqEfdg (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Biology. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Its journal Arboricultural Journal: International Journal of Urban Forestry (formerly Arboricultural Association Journal) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q96326792 is indexed in Scopus. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:28, 21 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!} 04:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep when you are the authoritative body in a niche sector there’s a bit of a notability conundrum - all the learned and professional papers are published by you, all the spokespeople are on your board, and pretty much everything connected with the topic is associated with you in some way. Nevertheless I find 1, multiple references in Horticulture Week, and they are the publishers of the scholarly journal of their discipline. Mccapra (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Propaganda in China#Terminology. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xuanchuan

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

I don't see the need for this article to stand alone, the current article could well be merged back into propaganda in China in several parts, some of which could be split out and put into Wiktionary. So I think it would be better to merge into Propaganda in China#Terminology. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 01:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and China. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 01:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Especially if you are the one to do the merger - you are a good and careful editor. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose owing to unnecessary wordiness. Merging Propaganda in China (7726 words) and Xuanchuan (1560 words) would result in 9286 words, which exceeds the Article size guidelines. Keahapana (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keahapana: This is not a major problem, and given that a lot of the content is in fact duplicated and a significant portion of the xuanchuan content is unsourced, it is entirely possible to trim it down to meet the standard. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 05:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Propaganda in China#Terminology per Tokisaki Kurumi. This is just the Chinese word for "propaganda", and the sources listed are all discussion of propaganda in China rather than the word specifically. We are well served by a breif discussion at Propaganda in China#Terminology and mentions in other relevant articles. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Propaganda_in_China#Terminology as proposed. This overlaps with that section, and not enough here to make it work doing a fork. There are entire paragraphs in this article that have nothing to do with China or Chinese which can be deleted. Oblivy (talk) 15:36, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A merger discussion can continue editorially Star Mississippi 14:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Fitzgerald

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

Notable for only winning Survivor: Kaôh Rōng. I think her runner-up finish in Survivor: Winners at War doesn't have enough depth or substantial coverage to be as equally notable as her Survivor win, despite being highly focused there. Same can be said about her appearances in The Challenge, where she hasn't yet won. I don't think she qualifies for WP:NENT either. Must be redirected to Survivor: Kaôh Rōng per WP:BIO1E (if WP:BLP1E doesn't apply), WP:PAGEDECIDE, or WP:BIODELETE. George Ho (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Television, and New Jersey. George Ho (talk) 01:45, 7 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 02:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think more independent reliable source are needed.--Meligirl5 (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do independent reliable sources make BLP1E or BIO1E inapplicable? Even meeting WP:N or GNG would not outweigh the topic's potential failures to comply with the project's policy toward such biographies, but I bet you disagree, eh? George Ho (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly understood she was only notable because she won in a notable event. But I can’t say delete or keep because the biography tells more than just the notable event but fails providing sources to meet WP:GNG. So I just had to suggest an opinion that could help to meet WP:GNG. Other editors are welcome to say what they feel.--Meligirl5 (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion because of her performance in both of her Survivor seasons, but I agree more independent reliable sources are needed. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Meligirl5 and JohnAdams1800: What are your thoughts on redirecting the article to Survivor: Kaôh Rōng, an alternative to deletion? George Ho (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this because I love survivor. 75.132.100.119 (talk) 01:26, 3 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I would suggest the article should be move to draft space, since she seems to be notable for a particular event but fails WP:GNG. Maybe before the 6 months time more proof of notability would have been gathered for the subject to be on the main space. If no improvement after 6 months, the draft page will be deleted as per wikipedia draft page policy under WP:G13.--Meligirl5 (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Information Science and Technology "St. Paul The Apostle"

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

The article states they have 375 students, which is not a university. Many of the claims look too much, and none are verified. From their own web page the number of faculty is very small. Making a Beowulf cluster is not notable. More significant coverage is needed, this fails almost everything. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment State universities and colleges tend to be notable, although this is a comparatively minor vocational one. It appears reasonably likely that WP:SOURCESEXIST, but searching in Cyrillic is difficult for many of us. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. Universities are normally notable, although even by North Macedonian standards this one appears to be quite small (the other public universities in North Macedonia for which we have articles each have more than 10 times as many students as this one). Yes, searching in Macedonian is difficult for us here, but the article in the Macedonian Wikipedia isn't that much better. At worst, though, redirect to List of universities in North Macedonia rather than deleting this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have generally kept universities founded by statute. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what policy? The Banner talk 18:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Seconding the policy question. Also, as I stated in the original nomination, I could not verify the claims -- maybe someone else can. For instance, I am doubtful about all the claimed collaborations with universities many times their size, the 14 BA & MA degrees, the ranking. I could not verify any of these. It is easy to write on a web page, but normally we look for verifiability, WP:N. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Based on WP:CONSENSUS over many AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I am asking for a policy. Not for a circular reasoning. The Banner talk 23:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, that policy would be WP:CONSENSUS! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am still asking for a policy that says specifically that we are keeping "universities founded by statute". WP:CONSENSUS does not state that. And saying that we keep universities because we kept universities in the past because we kept universities in the past etc. is a circular reasoning. Not based on any policy. The Banner talk 17:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the top level polytechnic of a nation that was founded by the national government is a notable act in itself. There are numerous US institutions with fewer undergraduates (Caltech) or even 1/10th of the total number of students (Deep Springs College) that are notable, so the size of the institution isn't a determining factor; the significance of the institution to a nation's identity is a glimpse at the importance to a people. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two points:

Please check your numbers, you are way off. Caltech has close to 3 times (1023) the number of undergrads per year, to compare to the total number of 357 for both BS & MS, plus Caltech admitted 1440 grads. https://registrar.caltech.edu/records/enrollment-statistics

You ignored the key point -- essentially nothing on this Wikipedia page is verifiable. The Deep Springs College page has 37 sources, plus stacks of other material that verifies notability.

I politely request that you demonstrate their notability if you want to defend them. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If we are to evaluate only based on the inserted references, then this fails every notability guideline, but if sources in foreign (local) language exist, and are promptly introduced, then things could change. I feel it's necessary that someone with proficiency in the local language performs some searches and shares the results. X (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Ldm1954 (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of universities in North Macedonia until proper sourcing can be identified. JoelleJay (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against recreation if sources become available. I conducted some searches in Macedonian but failed to locate significant secondary source coverage. Right now we are doing no service to our readers by having an article unsupported by sources making various dubious claims. AusLondonder (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Redirection to List of universities in North Macedonia is an excellent alternative to deletion. I'm on the fence as far as independent notability, leaning very very slightly on the keep side, essentially per the argument of Necrothesp. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply stating we have kept other articles is not an argument. AusLondonder (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish keep. I got some help from one of our students here with language. There's an interview with the vice-rector [13], which we probably can't use for facts, but which I think contributes to notability. Substantial piece in Makedonsko Sonce on a potential reorganization [14]. There's coverage in national newspapers related to a labor disagreement [15], and in context of national university organization [16] (for example, lots of stories of the latter type). Lots of coverage in Ohrid News, for example [17][18][19][20]. I found perfoming Google site-searches for "Универзитетот за информатички науки и технологии" to be helpful. Overall, I'm seeing enough consistent coverage over time for a reasonable notability case. As other editors have been saying, this is as one would expect for one of a small number of state universities. I am not impressed with the comparison with CalTech, but I think it might be helpful to compare with e.g. the University of Maine School of Law: a small technical school that is nonetheless of regional importance and wider interest, and that is appropriate for encyclopedic coverage. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to connect reputation to Caltech -- and Deep Springs, Harvey Mudd, or University of Main School of Law is a better analogy to what I meant as my point that size of institution in itself isn't a determinant of notability. Thanks for the better comparison. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @ElKevbo and Sdkb: as regulars at WP:WikiProject Higher Education, their input could help build a consensus. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but my expertise is in US higher education. And with seemingly most or all of the available sources not being in my only language I'm afraid that I can't be very helpful here at all. If pressed, I would lean slightly toward keep on the strength of the evidence that you cited in your own "weakish keep" !vote. But if there aren't enough sources available for an article to be written by volunteers in English Wikipedia then I would certainly understand a "delete" result. ElKevbo (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Found this via ping above) Keep per Russ Woodroofe (trusting the validity of the sources, as I don't speak Macedonian). Sdkb ^talk 14:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023#April. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Khyber bombing

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

All the sources provided are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. Whilst it may be terrorism, the sources do not definitively establish that. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023, where it's already mentioned. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or merge selectively) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023#April. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pelangi Hotel (Bintan)

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

Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For some reason, the nominator considers that all the hotels and resorts in Bintan Regency fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aymatth2 Because they are really not? I'm very skeptical of these assesment that they are "notable" per WP:CORP. Hotels rarely fullfil it. I can see if its in Bali or Jakarta but Bintan?Nyanardsan (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hotels like these are often notable. A typical resort hotel is a large structure or structures covering a large area. It may have interesting architecture. Construction is expensive and messy. It employs a lot of people. Events are held at it. Journalists stay there. It changes ownership. Any or all of these aspects may be discussed in some depth. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been to Bintan and it's high end, caters to wealthy businessmen from Singapore looking for a quick getaway in particular. Economically it's closer tied to Singapore than Indonesia and you'll find these resorts feature in the top southeast Asian magazines. It is possible that some like this might not have the sources we need online though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't one of the resort hotels, and seems to be a lesser notable one inland. Can't find adequate coverage of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Failing WP:NCORP, not notable. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:06, 10 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.

Bader Pretorius

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's this and this along with other coverage in South African and European media. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing enough sustained coverage to justify GNG, including in the links above. JoelleJay (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 5 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 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 merge‎ to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. I'm not seeing any clear SIGCOV; all sources presented have been rebutted as insufficient. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Woods

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable character, incredibly minor side character who appears as in three episodes. Fails WP:NCHARACTER and GNG Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, and Science fiction and fantasy. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Questions Not so sure, there are some sources. Would this publication count as a reliable source? Likewise the character appears in Women in Doctor Who: Damsels, Feminists and Monsters, but I cannot see the extent. Can anyone else? There's also Gender and the Quest in British Science Fiction Television, pp. 186, 206-207, [21] and [22]. Daranios (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That pdf appears to be a student paper, so I would say no. What Culture is unreliable and that Digital Spy listicle is just a basic plot summary. The second book doesnt seem great either. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 11:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the books don't seem like significant coverage, mentions don't contribute to notability Indagate (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's not just a mention in the book, but also commentary. Similarly, Doctor Who - Twelfth Night focusses on analyzing the episode "Kill the Moon", but beyond a mere mention has brief analysis on Courtney as the Maiden. Daranios (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable character. Indagate (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to, I guess, List of Doctor Who supporting characters or keep. I don't quite agree that Gender and the Quest... "doesnt seem great either", and we have the short reception section already, so I am on the fence about notability as long as I don't get more input about Women in Doctor Who or additional sources. In any case, even if this character should not be notable in it's own right, we still have this reception section based on secondary sources which should be WP:PRESERVEd, not lost in deletion. No advantage for the reader whatsoever there. Daranios (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on Daranios finding coverage in two books published by the reputable McFarland & Company press. There is also coverage of the character in this PhD dissertation. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were published by a reputable publisher, but only mentions. PhD dissertation isn't a reliable source so doesn't contribute to notability. Indagate (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RS, Care should be exercised with PhD dissertations, but they can be used. This is not an example of a hard sciences dissertation that is mostly primary source data collection; rather, it's a humanities dissertation that better resembles the secondary source analysis found in monographs. This dissertation specifically is about reception (seen in their fan-generated reviews and creative productions), establishing the character's real-world notability. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Doctor Who supporting characters - Not seeing enough juice in the sources here to meet WP:GNG. Part of the awkwardness is that List of Doctor Who supporting characters is a mediocre merge target. Other related list articles (like List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens or List of companions in Doctor Who spin-offs) include paragraphs for each list entries, where the merge target currently functions primarily as a list of lists. But I don't think that's a good reason not to merge there, with no prejudice to splitting off these human/supporting characters into List of Doctor Who universe human characters or similar. Suriname0 (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The supporting characters list is in dire need of a rewrite. In any case, at worst the page history would be preserved there, so future editors can take sources from the page history for use here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:05, 10 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of Shan states

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Calling this a genealogy would be the same as calling List of French monarchs a genealogy; technically not incorrect but a bit silly as it is a list of rulers. Certainly passes WP:NLIST; for instance, in the appendix of this book, there is a list of the rulers of about 35 of these states from 1887 to 1959. It seems the majority of the present article is derived from WorldStatesman [23], which is of course deprecated. WP:TNT is an option that is on the table. Curbon7 (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I don't know if it's past the WP:TNT tipping point yet. It's likely that much of the content could be sourced from the generic references. Don't think the material is necessarily controversial enough to mandate WP:INLINE citations. Of course, it's also likely that WorldStatesman is the true source, hence the weak keep. I don't personally have much time to edit this week, but I could go through the book Curbon listed or find other books I do have on Shan states and try to inline cite some the week after that. But doesn't seem unrecoverable and full of misinformation just because of a lack of inline citations. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 03:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Here are some recent (last couple of weeks) examples of why TNT is needed: [24], [25], [26]. None of this is sourced, no one can tell if these edits are correct or not. The article is too far gone to expect anyone to fix it. // Timothy :: talk 08:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good selections- as far as I can tell it isn't merely even changes in romanizations/inconsistent dating between chronicles. Changing my vote to agree on TNT grounds. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 17:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially no citations. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looked for and could not find any better sources than the one this article was copy-pasted from,[27] although another person seems to have the same text on their website.[28] Google any two random names and there are no results. These facts lack provenance. The sources from a hundred years ago have not been digitized, so few of the data points can be verified. WP:TNT may leave a crater that isn't replaced for a great long while but there's no clear path toward improving the article. Wizmut (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These lists are also on their main pages. See Kengcheng, Möng Mao, and Mongnai State, for example. No need to keep the same lists on this page.

About sources, I can provide some; however, the current lists need to be rechecked:

- Hsenwi: [29] (Thai)

- Kengcheng: Chronicles of Chiang Khaeng A Tai Lü Principality of the Upper Mekong. Cannot find a full version online.

- Kengtung: is well-sourced.

- Möng Mao: [30] [31] (Thai)

- Hsenwi, Mongyang State, Chiang Hung: [32] (Chinese)

- Möng Mao, Mongkawng, Wanmaw State: [33]

- Mongyawng State: [34] (Thai) transcribed from the original text

- Chiang Hung: [35] (Thai) สี่ขีด (talk) 04:10, 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. Star Mississippi 11:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MobiBLU DAH-1500i

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

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

The only reason for notability seems to be the claim that this is the "world's smallest" MP3 player, but the citation for that goes to a PCMag page which says "... billed as the "world's smallest" digital audio player, and we're pretty sure that's true" which is not any form of proof of the claim. Furthermore, "billed" seems to imply that these are the words of the manufacturer only, and indeed I have not been able to find any sort of official confirmation of the claim. AlexGallon (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason I am also nominating Cube2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion. AlexGallon (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz – I left a message over at your talk page related to this nomination. AlexGallon (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1, 2, 3, 4 A gadget that was widely reviewed at the time of its release from major pubs and had lasting coverage. Tech products's notability largely depends on reviews. Not every MP3 players in the market get reviewed from big tech pubs. The only reason for notability seems to be the claim that this is the "world's smallest" MP3 player, but the citation for that goes to a PCMag page which says "... billed as the "world's smallest" digital audio player, and we're pretty sure that's true" which is not any form of proof of the claim. Here's a more appropriate source that independently states the claim: The bite-size MobiBLU DAH-1500i is the smallest, most impressively full-featured Flash player we've seen yet. - PCMag UK, Jun 27, 2018. X (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of thousands of mp3 players. Refs don't say anything, they're mundane reviews. Desertarun (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One that has been independently called the world's smallest MP3 player. Notable lasting coverage exists for this particular player, outside typical routine coverage. X (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Might be worth keeping if it was somehow still the world's smallest personal audio device (it's not 2005 anymore), but it probably wasn't the smallest for very long, as an Apple product may have been tinier in 2009.[36] Googling around, nobody keeps track of the smallest device anymore, so it's not a notable topic after all. Lots of products get released every year and they all get reviewed, then replaced and thrown away. They are not notable.[37][38] The lasting coverage mentioned earlier contains no coverage.[39] Wizmut (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above comment Okmrman (talk) 04:26, 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 delete‎. I now see a consensus to delete these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French exonyms

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Europe. PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT, not to mention being entirely unsourced. ---- D'n'B-t -- 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this was just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago, and has been re-nominated by the same nominator. Definitely a WP:TROUT or possibly even sanctions may be in order. SportingFlyer T·C 18:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago

That's... that's the point of re-nominating. To... create consensus where it wasn't possible to do so before. BrigadierG (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the mass deletion of all exonym listicles failed to reach consensus, so they are now listed separately. —Tamfang (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well, that's still ridiculous then. The UN has a working group specifically on French exonyms, as does the French government, showing this is a valid encyclopedic topic. I don't know how any of you are getting to WP:NOTDICTIONARY here - these are not definitions or dictionary entries but rather valid lists - and WP:LISTCRUFT is simply an "i don't like it" argument. SportingFlyer T·C 19:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, an article on the working group might be interesting. But how is an endless list of French words for places more worthy than a list of French words for spices or engine parts? —Tamfang (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or Bosnian names of primate families —Tamfang (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that link, the author refers to the project as an attempt to create a database. Sure would be a shame if there was a policy called WP:NOTDATABASE. BrigadierG (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a database, though, it's a valid WP:LIST. SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In most of our lists, most of the entries have their own articles. Is there any prospect of an article about the French word for Bangkok? —Tamfang (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST specifically says the entries in the list do not need to be notable enough for their own article, just that the group or set is notable. A simple Google scholar search lends more credibility to the fact this set is notable, such as [40] [41] [42], including (but not linking here) two articles on French exonyms for Polish place names. SportingFlyer T·C 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

… I meant to add: no consensus because not all such listicles are equally trivial, i.e., some do more than belabor the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words (including placenames) to its own phonology and orthography. —Tamfang (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. There was no consensus because there was simply too much in the nom for one discussion. My bad. So, I'm going back through the area in a more rational way. Re-listing when no consensus emerges is what's supposed to happen. PepperBeast (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nominator, this is a case of WP:NOTDICTIONARY BrigadierG (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BoomCase

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hi Sadads,

I think it is a big stretch to say BoomCase was just a flash-in-the-pan media sensation. Lets start with some of the bigger things.

As the article states BoomCase has been featured in at least 3 published Books. The first book, Art without waste, was published in 2014, four years after it started gaining media attention. The second book Retro and Vintage Design, also published in 2014, is highlighting their contributions to the design world. The third book, Made to Last published in 2017, goes even further than these books with an in-depth multipage look at what BoomCase has done with design and innovation. If multiple authors are writing about BoomCase 7+ years after its founding, I cant see how it could be considered a "flash in the pan".

Secondly, I would argue It has even transcended into popular culture by being featured in a globally broadcasted main event WWE wrestling match - Brock Lesnar BoomBox by BoomCase | The BoomCase© , being used in commercials - BoomCase in H&R Block Commercial | The BoomCase© , in a popular Bollywood movie, Ae Dil Hai Mushkil , https://theboomcase.com/boomcase-in-bollywood-film/ , featured on the Ukraine's #1 travel show in 2015 , https://theboomcase.com/boomcase-featured-on-ukraines-1-travel-show/, and being used for art work on beer cans - https://theboomcase.com/melvin-beer-x-boomcase/ , among many other things. (Blog | The BoomCase©)

There are a lot of things one could include just by looking at their Blog (Blog | The BoomCase©) or press page (https://theboomcase.com/press/) that would counter the flash in the pan idea.

Finally, the BoomCase is still an operating company 14+ years later. Usually, one hit wonders peak and then disappear. Seeing that BoomCase is still around being featured in press, tv and used for architectural projects in multiple countries with their new speaker wall product I can't agree with the labeling of "flash-in-the-pan media sensation". MistaKoko (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out MistaKoko's editing since September 2019 has been virtually exclusively geared towards getting this company's article into mainspace – they almost certainly have a conflict of interest. – Teratix ₵ 14:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I appreciate your thorough perspective Sadads, I respectfully disagree with the characterization of BoomCase as an "overspecialized organization with no lasting public relevance." On the contrary, BoomCase has demonstrated enduring significance and cultural impact in the realm of portable audio technology whether you are familiar with them or not.

Firstly, BoomCase's longevity speaks volumes about its relevance and staying power. Since its inception in 2009, the company has continued to thrive and evolve, expanding its reach and influence both domestically and internationally. This sustained presence contradicts the notion of being a mere "flash-in-the-pan" phenomenon.

Furthermore, BoomCase's contributions extend beyond mere media sensation. The company has been involved in numerous art installations and collaborations, showcasing its innovative approach to design and technology. Its products have been sought after by a diverse clientele, including celebrities and influencers, further underscoring its cultural significance and relevance.

Additionally, BoomCase's impact on popular culture cannot be overlooked. From its presence in mainstream media to its integration into various events and settings, BoomCase has become synonymous with style, innovation, and quality in the portable audio market.

In light of these considerations, I believe that BoomCase warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. I personally hate that a company can exist for this long and have physical impact on communities and still have to fight for a basic Wiki page like they don't exist, they do exist and have accomplished more than most companies. They deserve a page. Mrironmonkey (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using LLMs to write your comments is highly disrespectful to other editors. I trust this !vote will be given zero weight. – Teratix ₵ 02:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using LLM's is going to be inevitable when you suffer from dyslexia, how does Wikipedia plan on functioning in the singularity next year or the next decade if you can't communicate clearly? I understand you may be resistant to AI right now, but it's going to be a huge part of our lives whether you like it or not. It's like being mad I used spellcheck. Address the points I made in the original post, and not something irrelevant to the argument.

I stand by my original point that if you lived in Northern/Southern California and you are in this space you have heard of Boomcase, and they deserve to be recognized in some capacity. Mrironmonkey (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you may be resistant to AI right now, but it's going to be a huge part of our lives whether you like it or not Cut it with this patronising, condescending attitude, you don't have a clue what I think about AI beyond my specific view that it's incredibly rude to generate arguments with the click of a button and expect real humans to invest their own time in debunking them, especially when said arguments have nothing to do with how we actually determine whether an article is warranted. – Teratix ₵ 11:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete name-checks some impressive-sounding sources, but they either only discuss the company in passing or seem to be advertorials rather than genuinely independent coverage. – Teratix ₵ 02:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Mrironmonkey is a WP:SPA who has made no other editor to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 06:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not true at all - please actually look at the sources and read them. Not reading the sources is highly disrespectful to the editors and I trust this vote will be given very little weight. -

Sources discussing the company in more than passing plus interviews -

https://www.cnet.com/news/its-a-boom-box-its-a-vintage-suitcase-no-its-a-boomcase/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boomcase-brings-back-the-boombox-using-old-suitcases_n_914933

https://www.gq.com/story/family-ties-and-a-summer-slam-dunk-ambsn-and-boomcase-by-mr-simo

https://web.archive.org/web/20141224233949/http://blog.urbanoutfitters.com/blog/uo_studio_visits_boomcase

Yes some are short but wired or the NYTimes are not running an ad for BoomCase nor are any of the blogs or websites sourced -

Custom Boomboxes Fashioned from Vintage Suitcases | WIRED

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/garden/audio-equipment-shopping-with-jonah-takagi.html

Plus the books -

BoomCaseBookMadetoLast-2.jpg (1600×2314) (wp.com) - https://books.google.com/books?id=NNyjAQAACAAJ

https://library.tcdc.or.th/record/view/b00032508#:~:text=Technology%20%26%20Entertainment-,Boom%20Case,-Argus%20C3

https://i0.wp.com/theboomcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/retrodesignBookBoomCaseBraunBoomBox.jpg MistaKoko (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the sources. You hardly expected me to write up individual refutations of 32 individual sources, did you? Instead I summarised their nature.

Look, I'll level with you. Pick the three best sources you've got and I'll write out individual evaluations of them. – Teratix ₵ 08:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete References seems to particularly promotional, many offering product for sale failing WP:SIRS and breaking the Terms of use, or a passing mentions of type that fail WP:CORPDEPTH or the type of PR that are paid placements by the company that fail WP:ORGIND. Either way, the whole thing is a crock and straight up advert that should be G11'd from the get go. It currently fails WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14. scope_creep^Talk 06:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On that top of that it was declined multiples times from AFC, before being accepted by a editor who is now checkuser blocked. The whole thing is absolute crock. scope_creep^Talk 06:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are not even reading the sources. How are these passing mentions? What proof do you have that the sources are PR? You cant just make claims when you have no idea what would have caused certain websites to write about a product. Just because a product received significant coverage doesn't make it paid. BoomCase is very small company of 5 or less people that started out by going viral I doubt they had money try to pay all these newspapers, books, and blogs to cover them. Come on now.

https://www.cnet.com/news/its-a-boom-box-its-a-vintage-suitcase-no-its-a-boomcase/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boomcase-brings-back-the-boombox-using-old-suitcases_n_914933

https://www.gq.com/story/family-ties-and-a-summer-slam-dunk-ambsn-and-boomcase-by-mr-simo

MistaKoko (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are UPE editors. We can go through the references if need be. scope_creep^Talk 06:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A more thorough review of the best sources MistaKoko has identified on their talk page:

CNET: A 400-word article is certainly significant coverage. My concern is it is not independent coverage. The author opens by noting I got in touch with the company's owner, Dominic Odbert, to learn more about his designs – i.e. the article is heavily dependent on Odbert himself for information. My concerns are heightened when I read the second paragraph: Each BoomCase [link to store] is a unique creation, so if you see one on Odbert's Web site that catches your fancy, don't think about it too long, because once it's sold, there's never going to be another one exactly like it. This reads like a sales appeal, not independent analysis. Ditto the last paragraph: Prices range from under $300 to $4,000, but the most popular models cost $500. That sounds very reasonable for hand-crafted, made-in-the-States audio designs.
The second source is hosted by HuffPost, but scrolling to the bottom reveals it was written for AOL Small Business, which appears to be a form of trade publication focused on entrepreneurs. We have a presumption against using trade publications as evidence for notability. It also has a similar problem to the CNET source where much of its content appears to depend on information from Odbert himself.
California Home Design again has similar problems to CNET where virtually all the content is either Odbert's own quotes or information provided by Odbert, and ends by calling for readers to Check out all that’s happening in BoomCase news on Odbert’s blog [link] and all BoomCases available for sale at his web store. [link]
GQ is an interview with Odbert and his cousin, again with no independent analysis beyond their own responses to the questions.
MELO is again mostly interview content providing no independent analysis beyond Odbert's responses. The little original writing is highly promotional, saying the Odbert brothers are changing the speaker game for good and call each Boomcase ... an extension of its owner's creative spirit. – Teratix ₵ 09:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks for taking the time to look closer at some of the sources. While I understand what you are saying, the thing is most articles like this are going to be very similar to this no matter what. Many reviews, interviews at about a certain product or company are going to include links to where to buy a product, list prices or write what they think is good or bad about it. Just because it does so doesn't mean its not an independent article. You would be hard pressed to find a review or write up on a product that does not include its price. I understand if these articles were about a large speaker company such as JBL or Pioneer and then trying to say these are all paid PR or non independent but being that BoomCase is a very small company its highly doubtful they had anything to do with the articles. It seems to me the viral nature of their story/product helped them receive so much press. There are so many things I Wish to cite from their press page but they are unfortunately from magazines that are not available online. (Press | The BoomCase©)

Also this has now become an argument started by Sadads about a "flash in the pan" sensation to an argument about references. I believe I should have the opportunity to find and improve the sources instead of a complete deletion. I think have shown it is not a flash in the pan by my first reply to Sadads.

There are still the three published books cited that I would like to use to write a better article. But im still not sure how to do this since I cant find the txt online other than a few images from BoomCases press page, but even then its not the full txt.

This is from above but just to show again the books - The first book, Art without waste, was published in 2014, four years after it started gaining media attention. The second book Retro and Vintage Design, also published in 2014, is highlighting their contributions to the design world. The third book, Made to Last published in 2017, goes even further than these books with an in-depth multipage look at what BoomCase has done with design and innovation. If multiple authors are writing about BoomCase 7+ years after its founding, I cant see how it could be considered a "flash in the pan". -

I have asked for help with this but have not gotten any unfortunately. I will keep trying.

Thanks again. MistaKoko (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Many reviews, interviews at about a certain product or company are going to include links to where to buy a product, list prices or write what they think is good or bad about it. Just because it does so doesn't mean its not an independent article. I'm not saying the articles aren't independent because they link to where to buy a BoomCase or list its price. I'm saying they aren't independent because they contain virtually no information or analysis that isn't either (a) directly attributable to Odbert (b) obviously dependent on a narrative provided by Odbert or (c) obvious sales copy. See WP:ORGIND for more about what "independent source" means in the context of companies.

As for the books: Art Without Waste just has pictures of two BoomCases with no information beyond bare captions; Retro and Vintage Design manages a bare six sentences; Made to Last... OK, that one might actually qualify as a decent source. But we need multiple independent sources to meet our notability guidelines. I'll grant you've got one. – Teratix ₵ 07:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking through it more - However I think its hard to say all the references are obvious sales copy or dependent on Odbert. I doubt all them contacted BoomCase to write up their articles and again if you are writting about a product there is usually some sort of pitch about buying it or not. Also, Art without waste is 4 images not 2. Retro and Vintage design - It seems that if a large publisher includes you in a book with a two page feature of product that its a bit notable. I have also seen online there is more written about BoomCase in other parts of the Book but its on Instagram and I know that is consider a good place to source...

You also mentioned the Cnet article could be a source...

but You say -... This reads like a sales appeal, not independent analysis. Ditto the last paragraph: Prices range from under $300 to $4,000, but the most popular models cost $500. That sounds very reasonable for hand-crafted, made-in-the-States audio designs. The author IS giving their independent analysis by saying the price sounds reasonable for a made in America audio design. Thats their opinion and analysis. Do you think BoomCase told them to say this or something?

I also translated another article - Clublife Magazine 1.2013 by Clipboard Media - Issuu - 200+ words and seems independent. MistaKoko (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Tera's analysis of the sources, fails WP:NCORP. While secondary coverage of the company in generally reliable sources certainly exists, most of it isn't independent or significant enough. Mooonswimmer 14:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fair comment and "weak delete" and not a mean attack like the first two commentors did initially. This doesn't even include all they wrote on my talk page or the conflict of interest noticeboard... I appreciate it.

I translated this https://issuu.com/clipboardpublishing/docs/clublife_magazine_1_2013/14 but its probably too late now. Hopefully I can keep working on this page somehow and try again later. MistaKoko (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After considering all the arguments and analysis above and the history of this article on Wiki, it does not pass WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:HEY. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 10:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George John Seaton

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

No evidence of notability. All the significant sources dealing with the topic are written by the subject. All others simply reference background story and not the subject. Fails WP:GNG . An earlier version was draftified because it lacked any credible claim to notability, so the same authored simply created this new version in mainspace without improving notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Africa, France, England, and South America. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - as well as the lack of notability, the whole thing reads like a school essay. Or maybe from a chat-bot. This is highlighted by the following comment in the lede: "This article explores George John Seaton's life as a prisoner, slave, and man. It will include researched documentation as well as information from his personal book, Isle of the Damned, to piece together the story of this man's intriguing life."--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like a school essay because the person who wrote the article, Jeorgiaobrien, is a university student who made it for an assignment. Just putting that out there in case anyone else who comes across this doesn't know. Sadustu Tau (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose moving the article into the draftspace. As the user above noted, this is part of a student assignment, in which first-year college students are grappling with understanding the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. The article was prematurely moved to the mainspace and correctly flagged—but it can be turned into a feasible Wikipedia article because there is a relevant source base.

Seaton’s notability primarily arises from the extensive reception of his autobiography, which occurred in two waves: 1) initial reception upon publication in the early 1950s, around the time Devil's Island ceased operations as a penal colony, by a largely Anglophone public and 2) the use of his autobiographical account in the contemporary historiography on French Guiana and related topics that reach from the treatment of prisoners across the French Empire to examples of queer sexuality during incarceration. In short, given that there is only a limited number of prisoners’ own accounts from their time in French Guiana (some of which have further been debunked as hoaxes), Seaton’s autobiography has become a standard historical source among scholars—and he, by extension, a model prisoner of sorts.

I have advised the student to make the necessary edits to turn this article into a proper encyclopedic essay, and to restructure it around the significance of his autobiography, which can be properly verified with secondary sources. We would appreciate it if she received the opportunity to make these edits in the draftspace. Outcasts&Outlaws (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as nominator, I have no problem with this being moved back to Draft. I would have done so myself had there not already been a Draft in existnce preventing the new version being draftified. It will therefore need an Admin to do the draftification. However, I or any other editor, will still have be convinced by the sourcing that this person is indeed notable and not simply a self publicist, before accepting it in Mainspace. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as the only !voter, I am also happy with draftification.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am the author of this article. I am continuously working on the article, so it meets the notability requirements. There are no longer any direct quotes from Seaton's autobiography and any wording that may sound like an essay has been removed. Here is a list of secondary sources that speak directly of Seaton and are sourced throughout the article: Negros with Slaves by Jet Magazine, Words of the Week by Jet Magazine, Space in the Tropics by Peter Redfield (University of California Press), and Empire of the Underworld (Harvard University Press). Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have been working on improving the article, there are now over 10 new sources that are all secondary sources and relate to George John Seaton. I have implemented many changes including formatting, word choice, and the removal of any primary source quotes. Please review this article once again. If you have more improvements you would like me to make, please visit my talk page. I will be happy to continue to make changes. After reviewing the article, if it meets notability requirements then I would love for this article to no longer be flagged for deletion. I am doing my best to follow Wikipedia's guidelines while also sharing a story of a man who should be remembered. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change !vote to Keep - the changes described above tip the scales (just) in my opinion. I would still like to see the article's tone cleaned up to fix unsupported phrases like "notoriously one of the worst penal colonies of its time", "if imprisonment didn't kill a prisoner, then disease would", etc. and to spend less space discussing Papillon in two different sections. But I think this can be done in place rather that draftifying. --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From a brief look at this article and its references, perhaps it could be retitled Isle of the Damned and be restructured to be about the book/s Isles and Scars - their reviews and reception, use by University of Michigan, comparisons, censorship, etc? It would of course include a potted bio of Seaton. Is there enough for WP:NBOOK? JennyOz (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I will speak with my professor about the suggestion and consider your idea. Best wishes, Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has basically been rewritten over the past two weeks and we have an unbolded "Keep" from the article creator. I'd like to hear from others, especially the nominator, whether these changes made to the article affect your point of view of what should happen with it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the nominator, I still remain uncertain about notability. As indicated above, I would be content with draftification to allow for improvement. I don't have access to any of the sources added during the recent major revision, but from their context it appears that the content of the book has been used in historical analysis both about the prison and its treatment of prisoners and other topics. Had this article been about the book, this may well have been sufficiet to demonstrate notability, but since , in this case, notability dependends on demonstrating multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject, I cannot be sure that that has been achieved, especially as most of the claims to notability are bundled into a single short paragraph at the end. Those with access to the quoted sources may possibly disagree, in which case I would be content to defer to their better understanding. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your uncertainty about the article's notability but the changes you first requested when you flagged my article for deletion have since been implemented. As for the accessibility of sources, nearly all of these sources come from publications made by recognized universities or from google books, etc. You should not have trouble accessing these sources if you wish to learn more. The only sources you may have trouble retrieving are the sources pulled from my university's archives. However, being that we are a research university, it is possible to access these upon reaching out to the university.

We did in fact leave out any claim that Seaton's book is credible. This is because the book is not being used as a source in the article but is instead just being referenced. My professor and I felt that it was more scholarly to explain how the book has been used in case studies rather than trying to persuade readers that the book is credible.

From your comment, it seems that your biggest issue with the article is the uncertainty that the sources are referencing Seaton himself. Most of these sources do speak directly of Seaton and were published after devil's island was closed in 1953. Seaton gained popularity for surviving the island which led to news coverage of him. These articles are all sourced in the article and as mentioned above they are public access if you wish to find them.

As the nominator, please give specific examples of what you would like changed in order to ensure notability and I will do so. I want to once again emphasize that nearly all of these sources can be accessed by the public and are available online. This can reassure you that subject matter is being reported on directly and not the context surrounding him. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a leaning-towards-a-Delete-!vote contributor: What's with the numerous assignments in academic institutions for students to "create a Wikipedia article"? Since when Wikipedia's criteria for article creation are the same as the criteria for academic papers? Such a practice endangers the objectivity of contributors evaluating the text as worthy of being in the encyclopaedia. I, for one, would perhaps hesitate to !vote for Deletion if that means the student's grading suffers! And we are essentially asked to do a supervising professor's job, when we assess a student's work.

P.S. As it happens, I find the subject lacking in independent notability on the basis of reliable sources. But the issue of academic papers flooding Wikipedia is more important. We should bear in mind this, for instance. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the creator of this article. As mentioned, I am a university student, and by no means an expert in writing encyclopedias. However, our class carefully trained with a Wikipedia representative from the Wikipedia Education Foundation (a group focused on building articles made by students). As well as help from our professor, who has a PhD in the topic, helped curate and edit our articles to meet Wikipedia standards. Since there has been issues with my particular article being granted publishing rights, she has stepped in to help me tremendously hoping to make this article go live.

Overall, our class is simply trying to share the stories of people who have been othered in history. A few of my sources are pulled from the University Library and Library Archives at Washington University in St. Louis. However, the rest of the sources are all available online and should be accessible to the public. I am unsure why accessing the sources has been an issue. Many of these sources have public access from esteemed Universities and others are published on google books, etc.

The original nomination for deletion was made due to the use of a primary source. This information has since been removed. My professor and I have added multiple new sources that are accessible through online databases and take the place of the primary source. As mentioned by the nominator (User:Velella), there is less emphasis on the book's notability. This was done on purpose, as we felt it was more scholarly to give facts about how the autobiography by Seaton has been used as case studies for prisons and prisoner homosexuality versus trying to make a biased claim that the book is credible. We also thought that including the credibility of the book was irrelevant to the article because there is no source usage of the book in the article any longer.

I would love more feedback for what changes you think this article may need. My class ends very quickly so I am hoping to have an article that is able to go live. Thanks. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was notable even before the new sources were added. Desertarun (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this page, thank you for your vote to keep! Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think notability is established by improvements, and I don't see how the purely autobiographical works could themselves be notable if their subject is not. BD2412 T 03:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this page, thank you for your vote to keep! Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Recent sentiment has been pointing towards keeping this article, but with some questions still being discussed regarding notability/sourcing etc. An extra 7 days can't hurt to shore up consensus either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definately met borderline GNG before, and now even more so per WP:HEYMAN. X (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per HEY. Passes GNG easily now. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Apostolic Prefecture of Lower Congo. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mission sui iuris of Lunda

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

I can verify that this administrative unit existed according to official church sources, but that's it. Possibly it could be merged somewhere but I don't see how it is even vaguely notable considering the utter lack of secondary interest. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Angola. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apostolic Prefecture of Lower Congo where it is already mentioned. Nothing else to be said about it apparently. Mccapra (talk) 11:57, 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 Merger without tags‎ since Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit, Canada_convoy_protest#Lawsuits have similar arguments behind them. Note Freedom Convoy... is a redirect so not viable as a target. Editors can discuss the best target without a further relist. No case has been made for why the content cannot be retained as there aren't BLP or CV issues, just that it should not be a standalone. Star Mississippi 11:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zexi Li

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

Pretty clear WP:BLP1E as this person is only notable for post-event legalities regarding the Canada convoy protest. All sources in the article and found in a WP:BEFORE check are in regards to the protest. Subject has otherwise demonstrated a consistent pattern of low-profile activity, while the article has been repeatedly vandalized in attack-page style. Pinging @Bueller 007: who initially raised BLP1E concerns. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, Law, and Canada. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Lead plaintiff" in a class-action suit is practically random. Of course, lawyers will name as a lead plaintiff someone with a legally sympathetic case, but that is not a source of notability, and neither is anything else indicated in the article. BD2412 T 03:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Worth a mention on the Freedom Convoy class action lawsuit page. But shouldn't have a dedicated article. Clearly BLP1E (or TOOSOON if you want to call it that). Bueller 007 (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge/redirect to Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit, where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources that were not about the lawsuit. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event notes:
When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event, and the person's name should be redirected to it.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: GhostOfDanGurney (talk · contribs), BD2412 (talk · contribs), and Bueller 007 (talk · contribs), would you support a selective merge/redirect to Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event? Cunard (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I don't think that we need a separate article for the class action lawsuit. Canada convoy protest#Lawsuits covers this same lawsuit with about as much detail. A merge of the child article into the parent wouldn't make the parent much more larger than it already is, would prevent/fix any WP:CFORK issues, and is something I had been considering doing WP:BOLDly prior to it being brought up here.

That said, I'm not opposed to a redirect of Zexi Li to Canada convoy protest#Lawsuits, or if there is consensus to keep the child split from the parent, to Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit. Mostly as per WP:CHEAP as I don't think any content on Zexi Li is worth merging over. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for not being opposed to a redirect. I think the best redirect target for now is Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit, where she is mentioned. If editors conclude that the class action lawsuit topic should not have a standalone article, then I think the best redirect target would be Canada convoy protest#Lawsuits (once her name is mentioned there) as you stated. Cunard (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no notability in being the lead plaintiff in a notable case, and nothing here suggests there is any other basis for notability. I would suggest merging anything pertinent into Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit, but I see nothing worth merging.

I guess a redirect would be okay, if there's a thought that someone might be searching on the name of the litigant, but that's probably not needed. TJRC (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being okay with a redirect. This Google News link shows that Zexi Li has given numerous interviews to the media about the Canada convoy protest. This article calls her "spokesperson and the face of the lawsuit" against the convoy, so I think her name is a plausible search query. Several reasons from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for not deleting also apply such as "They have a potentially useful page history" (there is useful information about her activism about the Canada convoy that potentially could be merged) and they would "make the creation of duplicate articles less likely" (an article about a lawsuit's spokesperson is duplicate to an article about the lawsuit). Cunard (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have to disagree that there is a "useful page history." I'll reiterate that there is absolutely nothing that I would consider merging from this article, so preserving the page history is of zero importance to me. I strongly prefer hard deletion, at which point if people think "Zexi Li" is a plausible search term, a redirect can be created later. Any support for a redirect that I've expressed here should be considered weak. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GhostOfDanGurney on the page history. As I said above, although I don't object to the redirect, I see nothing worth merging, so there's no need to retain the page history, which is not potentially useful. TJRC (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second and fourth paragraphs of Zexi Li#Adult life would meet the due weight policy if merged to Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit. This is why I consider the content and history to be useful and worth preserving. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because although there is a consensus that this shouldn't be a standalone article, there are several different target articles suggested here. Can we narrow this down to one to Redirect or Merge to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am responding to the relisting comment asking about narrowing this down to one redirect or merge target. I think the best redirect or merge target is Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit since Zexi Li is already mentioned there and merging content (the second and fourth paragraphs of Zexi Li#Adult life) there would comply with the due weight policy. Cunard (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that details on her whereabouts are relevant and I'm not sure how WP:DUE applies to it. Canada convoy protest is a far better sourced article than either Zexi Li or Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit; merging Zexi Li is wholly unneeded when Canada convoy protest already covers everything relevant; her specific whereabouts (paragraph two) is covered by the text "...on behalf of downtown Ottawa residents over continuous air horn and train horn noise." and her specific testimony (paragraph four) is not relevant when looked at in the context of the article (it's obvious and well-sourced that Ottawa residents experienced varying levels of distress during the event).

This article should be deleted, with no merge or redirection. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zexi Li is the lead plaintiff of a class action lawsuit against the Canada convoy protest. The second and fourth paragraphs discuss her living in a high-rise building in Ottawa and her testimony about how she and other Ottawa residents were disrupted by the noise generated by the Canada convoy protest. This is the crux of her class action lawsuit against the Canada convoy protest, making the information relevant—due weight—for both Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit and Canada convoy protest#Lawsuits. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit per WP:BLP1E. I agree with the above that there are select passages that could be merged elsewhere. If there is consensus that Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit should be merged and redirected, then the redirect can be changed to Canada convoy protest#Lawsuits. Yeeno (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and comments above Okmrman (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to this search, this comment is one of 67 AfD comments Okmrman made in the last hour. Cunard (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All with pretty much the same "per nom" rationale, too. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:19, 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.

Gotham, Inc.

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

Fails WP:CORP. Found only one independent source with in-depth coverage: https://archives.lib.duke.edu/catalog/gothaminc. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and United States of America. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 28 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!} 04:05, 5 May 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 04:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. There's literally no content in the article, just a list. Sources are all press releases. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:21, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King & Maxwell

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

I was trying to PROD this but they reverted it two times, Since this show is extremely non-notable, i want to delete the Wikipedia page of this show. Agusmagni (talk | contributions) 22:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, and United States of America. Agusmagni Agusmagni Agusmagni 22:03, 27 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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is the fourth time in a row the nominator has sent clearly notable TV series with plenty of significant coverage to AfD. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, completely frivolous nomination. The fact that the nominator tried to prod it twice shows unfamiliarity with how things are done here, so grab the opportunity to learn more! Geschichte (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no opinion on this TV series and trust the regular commentators to evaluate it more knowledgeably than I would. But I wanted to note that, when I reverted the second prod on procedural grounds, my edit summary explicitly told the nominator that, if they were to take it to an AfD, they should provide "a proper justification of what you tried to do to determine its notability" rather than a WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE rationale. They have obviously not done what I suggested. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should delete Agusmagni (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. You need to provide a rationale that explains why you think this article might not meet the specific Wikipedia notability guidelines that would be relevant for it. We're not here to count how many people are for and how many are against, which is the only information I get from your comment. We're here to build an understanding of how this topic does or does not fit into the Wikipedia notability guidelines. Comments that do not do that are likely to be discounted when the discussion is closed. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as no valid deletion rationale has been advanced. We don't base the judgment call about whether to keep an article about a TV show on whether that show sounds forgettable, but instead, on whether reliable sources exist for it. Here, they do. XOR'easter (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TNT (American TV network) because most of TNT's shows are not notable. Agusmagni (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just assert that. Again, you need to provide a rationale for why it might be true, a rationale grounded in what the word notable means on Wikipedia. XOR'easter (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The show has non-notable people behind it and only has news released before the show. Agusmagni (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is never inherited, so you are still not providing a valid rationale. Honestly, someone should just close all of the AfDs as speedy keep. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 20:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disney Channel logos logos Agusmagni (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article for notable show. The nominator has posted "Let's start an edit war" on this page (and then replaced it with nonsense). They are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Toughpigs (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. The user is basically just here to start edit wars and tag articles for deletion. kpgamingz (rant me) 23:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per others, and to the nom, please don't nominate another article for deletion until you have read the guidelines and policies Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nomination lacks proper justification and seems based on personal opinion. Waqar💬 20:22, 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.

Daniel Rosenfeldt

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

Hi; this is my first time both using Twinkle and participating in the AfD process, so try not to flame me too hard if I make a mistake here. This article has somewhat poor sourcing and I've done a check for his name to try and find anything on him but I've come up short. If anyone can find better sources for this, that would be great, but I'm unable to on my end. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and South Africa. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark, Switzerland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing in the article suggests notability per WP:MUSICBIO and I'm unable to find any significant coverage online. InDimensional (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: High ranking in a major TV contest gives notability but I'd suggest that coverage in English will be hard to find Sansbarry (talk) 01:20, 30 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!} 04:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I found a couple of profile articles about him: in the Danish magazine Familie Journalen [43]; and on TV2 (Denmark) [44]. I don't think being a "semifinalist" on the TV Talent show is particularly impressive -- there are 35 semifinalists each year. But the two articles may be enough to pass WP:GNG. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These seem fine; it's probably the language barrier that makes finding sources harder. If someone's willing to add them in somehow (I can't at this exact moment) then I'd probably be willing to keep the article. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nothing wrong with submitting an AfD and not being 100% sure (I have withdrawn a good few after somebody came up with dece sources). jp×g 🗯️ 01:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Promo interview, fails WP:IS	1. Isbrand, Johan (8 November 2019). "Daniel creates magic in the Circus Building: I have taught myself everything". Familie Journalen.
Brief, but may meet WP:SIGCOV	2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Hansen, Sebastian Myrup (31 March 2018). "Was tapped on the shoulder - two years later he had been all over Denmark". TV 2 (Denmark).
Performance annoucement, fails WP:IS	3. ^ Daniel Rosenfeldt Performing at Skanderborg Festival 2014
Performance annoucement, fails WP:IS	4. ^ "Daniel Rosenfeldt Live at Louisiana". Archived from the original on 2015-05-09. Retrieved 2015-02-24.
Show promo trailer, fails WP:IS	5. ^ Det Stribede Show Trailer
Name mention, fails WP:SIGCOV	6. ^ Hansen, Sebastian Myrup (31 March 2018). "Dansedrenge gik videre til finalen i 'Danmark har talent'". TV2.
Database listing	7. ^ Discogs profile: Daniel Rosenfeldt

Nothing found in BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS. One ref above may meet SIGCOV, but that is not enough to show notability. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To remind you, sourcing level requirement for BLP is more stringent than GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Timothy's source review. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:53, 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!} 04:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Dennis Rodman

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

Another WP:NOTSTATS violation featuring indiscriminate trivia. Let'srun (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For reference, there's recent NBA-related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Larry Bird, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwight Howard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul.—Bagumba (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, indiscriminate, trivial stats minutiae. Major, defining achievements should be captured in the main bio. The basic stats are already at Dennis Rodman § NBA career statistics. Also fails WP:NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing As most of this page is unsourced, there's no opportunity to merge either.—Bagumba (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork of the biography. P.S. It's hard enough for the stats people to keep things updated in one centralized place, let alone if every player starts getting a biography page and a stats page. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If you believe these articles should be "Kept" then please state this along with your argument instead of making a general "Comment". Comments are ambiguous and don't give a closer a clear idea on where you stand on what should happen with this particular article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Kevin Garnett

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

This is a WP:NOTSTATS violation, which has also been tagged for verification since 2011. Let'srun (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For reference, there's recent NBA-related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Larry Bird, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwight Howard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul.—Bagumba (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, don't need such lists especially said achievements can be placed in the player's own main page in an accolades, or legacy area. Will also copy paste this to the other aforementioned lists. Noorullah (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And for reference, there's recent golf player's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Jack Nicklaus. Less related but still relevant to the discussion. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOBIG, cited in Nicklaus' case, doesn't apply to Garnett's page.—Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. But someone will possibly make the assertion that every single career achievement page (across all sports) should be deleted (already happened in previous AfD discussions). Before they go there, they should consider Nicklaus' AfD result. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Career achievements of sportspeople shows that 18 racing drivers have their own career achievements page. Is WP:TOOBIG the reason why? - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles make a little bit more sense in racing sports and golf, which have lots of discrete named events. From a maintenance perspective, they're easier to manage. Many of the achievements listed in NBA articles are cumulative stats and career rankings that are continuously subject to change. Zagalejo (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, trivial statistics. Major, defining achievements should be captured in the bio, which it already does in its main prose and via tables and lists at Kevin Garnett § NBA career statistics and Kevin Garnett § Achievements and records. The rest here fails WP:NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing The page is a pure stats dump.—Bagumba (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork of the biography. P.S. It's hard enough for the stats people to keep things updated in one centralized place, let alone if every player starts getting a biography page and a stats page. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umbrella fund}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volker Mosblech}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alternative names for oceans}}