Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 8

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WANGYIFAN2024 (talk | contribs) at 04:32, 8 April 2024 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huaguoyuan Towers.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 07 April 09 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huaguoyuan Towers

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

The Huaguoyuan Tower is a pair of super tall skyscrapers located in Guiyang, Guizhou, China. However, I couldn't find a lot of relevant information on Chinese search engines, perhaps due to translation issues. In fact, the media did not continue to pay attention to this building, which is in line with Wikipedia:Notability WANGYIFAN2024 (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Chen, Yue; Feng, Yan 冯艳 (2015-09-21). Zhao, Xingzhi 赵兴智 (ed.). "中国第一高——花果园双子塔封顶" [The Tallest in China - Huaguoyuan Twin Towers Topped Out]. 贵州商报 [Guizhou Business Daily] (in Chinese). Guizhou Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-06-16. Retrieved 2024-04-08.

      The article notes: "花果园双子塔坐落于贵州省最大旧城改造项目——花果园项目的核心位置，分东西两座塔楼，两塔结构高度和建筑总高度分别均为334.35米和406米，属于花果园200万平方米商业规划中最重要部分。作为贵阳未来城市的地标性建筑和贵阳城市经济发展的缩影，双子塔规划时就被赋予了“铭记加速发展、加快转型的奋进贵州”的特殊含义，奠基时更被看作是“我国西部崛起的一个标志”。"

      From Google Translate: "The Huaguoyuan Twin Towers are located at the core of the Huaguoyuan Project, the largest old city renovation project in Guizhou Province. They are divided into two towers, the east and west towers. The structural height of the two towers and the total building height are 334.35 meters and 406 meters respectively. They belong to the Huaguoyuan 2 million Square meters are the most important part of business planning. As the landmark building of Guiyang's future city and the epitome of Guiyang's urban economic development, the Twin Towers were given the special meaning of "keeping in mind the accelerating development and transformation of Guizhou" when they were planned. When the foundation was laid, they were even regarded as "the rise of western my country." a sign of"."

    2. Liu, Lihong 刘丽红 (2018-04-12). "贵阳花果园双子塔开启全球招租" [Guiyang Huaguoyuan Twin Towers opens global leasing] (in Chinese). China Internet Information Center. Archived from the original on 2024-04-08. Retrieved 2024-04-08.

      The article notes: "贵阳国际贸易中心双子塔高335米，是目前全国已经修建完成的最高“双子塔”，分为A、B两座，A座是贵阳少有的超甲级写字楼，属于贵阳写字楼的翘楚。B座则是贵阳的首家超奢华五星费尔蒙酒店及部分高端公寓。"

      From Google Translate: "The twin towers of Guiyang International Trade Center are 335 meters high and are the tallest "twin towers" that have been built in the country. They are divided into two towers, A and B. Tower A is a rare super-A office building in Guiyang and is the leader of Guiyang office buildings. Tower B is Guiyang’s first ultra-luxury five-star Fairmont hotel and some high-end apartments."

    3. "央视上演"厉害了我的国"全国33个城市地标主题灯光秀 花果园双子塔闪耀筑城" [CCTV staged "My Country is Amazing" with landmark-themed light shows in 33 cities across the country, and the Twin Towers of the Flower Orchard shimmered into the city.] (in Chinese). China Internet Information Center. 2017-10-09. Archived from the original on 2024-04-08. Retrieved 2024-04-08.

      The article notes: "贵阳花果园项目“双子塔工程”，位于贵阳市南明区花果园项目中部彭家湾地段，贵黄公路、川黔铁路和贵广高铁以北，花溪大道西侧。它以335米的建设高度成为贵阳城市的新地标。作为贵阳城市的地标性建筑和贵阳城市经济发展的缩影，双子塔规划时就被看作“我国西部崛起的一个标志”。"

      From Google Translate: "The "Twin Towers Project" of Guiyang Huaguoyuan Project is located in the Pengjiawan section of the central Huaguoyuan Project in Nanming District, Guiyang City, north of Guihuang Highway, Sichuan-Guizhou Railway and Guizhou-Guangzhou High-speed Railway, and on the west side of Huaxi Avenue. With a construction height of 335 meters, it has become a new landmark in Guiyang city. As a landmark building in Guiyang and the epitome of Guiyang's economic development, the Twin Towers were regarded as "a symbol of the rise of western my country" when they were planned."

    4. Xu, Qifei 徐其飞 (2020-08-19). Gao, Linxiao 郜林筱; Chen, Kangqing 陈康清 (eds.). "清晨登顶花果园双子塔 一览"云隙光瀑"奇观" [Climb to the top of the Huaguoyuan Twin Towers in the early morning to see the wonders of the "Light Waterfall in the Clouds"]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-08. Retrieved 2024-04-08.

      The article notes: "站在花果园双子塔上望去，只见一束束阳光穿透云层，如从天而降的“瀑布”直泻大地。大大小小的山头在光瀑的照射下，散发出空灵、静谧的魅力。"

      From Google Translate: "Standing on the Twin Towers of Huaguoyuan, you can see beams of sunlight penetrating the clouds, like "waterfalls" falling from the sky to the earth. Under the illumination of the light waterfall, the mountains, large and small, exude an ethereal and quiet charm."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Huaguoyuan Towers (simplified Chinese: 花果园双子塔; traditional Chinese: 花果園雙子星大樓), also known as Guiyang International Trade Center (simplified Chinese: 贵阳国际贸易中心; traditional Chinese: 貴陽國際貿易中心) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:17, 8 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! 23:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evie Dolan

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG based on sources in article and search of Newspapers.com. Most of the sources in the article are passing mentions and the only significant coverage is from questionable sources. Additionally, the only significant contributors to the page ([1]) appear to be users with conflicts of interest. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Contributor892z: The first link includes one trivial mention of Dolan, which does not constitute significant coverage. The second link also includes one trivial mention in a BuzzFeed-style slideshow. It is also from the New York Post, which is considered generally unreliable per WP:NYPOST. Your assertion that "anyone that was a teenage girl in 2015 knew about her" does not hold weight per WP:IKNOWIT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eagles247: honest question: wouldn’t someone that was the recurring face of ads with international circulation targeting a sizeable cohort of the world population be notable? Contributor892z (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Contributor892z: Probably not, see WP:NACTOR for a rough guideline of how actor notability can be determined. Nothing about being the face of an ad campaign. And the role she had in School of Rock was minor, so it likely wouldn't count towards the "significant roles in multiple [...] stage performances" aspect of the guideline. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kindly note that this editor, Contributor892z, is confused about what WP:SIGCOV entails as they think google hit search count toward that. Not sure from where they got this policy. For reference please see their response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penton Keah. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:27, 3 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! 23:05, 31 March 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) 04:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Also unable to find significant coverage that goes into significant depth about the subject. At the moment the article reads like a simple résumé page, and it doesn't look like the subject has quite achieved notability just yet. InDimensional (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found only one of the articles which is broadwayworld.com to be proper for notability. We would need a few more like this. RolandSimon (talk) 21:54, 14 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 12:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prosus Inten

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

This company seems to fail WP:GNG given that there is only one notable news source for this company, and what seems to be an advertisement. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [4]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian topic and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [5] [6]. Also there's another source about the topic [7], [8], [9]. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— 202.43.93.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, 2 references in the article are list of cram schools and promotional material for this cram school. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Most of the sources found on the web are just passing mentions and the only coverage is from CNBS Indonesia. Again, the article has one source which does not convince me at the moment -- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 10:34, 8 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Naji

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

BLP does not seem to have held any office position. Fails WP:NPOL and GNG. My WP:BEFORE search didn't bring much, which could be because of the language. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Belgium. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: joint president of a national party which has elected representatives to parliament. Could be expanded with sources from the nl:Nadia Naji, mostly 2022 sources so not associated with her current candidacy. PamD 08:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PamD: Would you mind taking a deeper look at the nl:Nadia Naji's sources again? From what I can see via google translate, they only have significant coverage surrounding her election as joint president. Apart from that, I do not see significant coverage on the other sources! Also, it would be helpful if you could mention the best three sources here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "only have significant coverage surrounding her election as joint president": well, what's the matter with that? Coverage of her as one of the two leaders of an established political party. De Standaard, which we call a "quality newspaper", has a piece about her marriage, which also suggests a level of notability. PamD 16:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PamD: Thank you, that makes two sources. If you can share one more, I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added another source. PamD 11:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, bladi.net has an inbuilt forum, which I'm not sure any news media has. It doesn't look very reliable and the article does not have significant coverage, so I'm not withdrawing. I'll just leave it to the closing admin to make a decision. Cheers Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: She's the co-president of a major Belgian political party. The person who put this article up for deletion seems to be completely ignorant on Belgian politics and should refrain from putting up articles for deletion in the future on Belgian topics.

Sources:

https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/nadia-naji-covoorzitter-van-groen-het-vlaams-belang-spuwt-op-mensen-zoals-ik-waarom-zou-ik-tom-van-grieken-dan-een-hand-geven~b9d1cf65/

https://www.hln.be/binnenland/covoorzitter-groen-nadia-naji-over-premie-elektrische-wagens-geef-je-dat-geld-aan-heel-select-clubje-vlamingen-om-tesla-mee-te-kopen-of-aan-openbaar-vervoer-voor-iedereen~aab1ef67/

https://www.brusselstimes.com/897661/fight-against-the-far-right-must-be-mission-of-all-democrats-say-belgian-greens

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2023/11/04/ontbijtgesprek-nadia-naji-groen-michael-van-droogenbroeck/

https://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/politiek/nadia-naji-groen-waar-zijn-de-socialisten-in-het-asieldebat/

178.51.7.219 (talk)

Comment: Being the co-president of a major Belgian political party will obviously attract a lot of media attention, but all the sources you have shared are just interviews from routine coverage. Interviews are not independent. Notability is not inherited, so being the co-president of Groen (political party) carries no weight here. If she is as important as you claim, then there should be a lot of reliable and published third-party sources available. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's even more sources (all major Belgian media, reliable, third party) outside of the five sources I already offered:

https://www.hln.be/binnenland/interview-nadia-naji-30-vlaams-blok-woog-op-mijn-jeugd-ik-kan-vbers-geen-hand-geven-zolang-zij-geen-respect-voor-mij-tonen~af213995/
https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20240414_96614061
https://www.brusselstimes.com/221713/flemish-greens-set-to-revive-the-party-with-new-leadership
https://www.dezondag.be/actua/nadia01102023/
https://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/politiek/naji-van-den-brandt-en-van-der-straeten-trekken-groene-lijst-in-brussel/
https://bx1.be/categories/news/nadia-naji-groen-sur-les-liens-avec-ecolo-entre-francophones-et-neerlandophones-on-peut-travailler-ensemble/
https://www.gva.be/cnt/dmf20231202_93310380
178.51.7.219 (talk) 178.51.7.219 (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Instead of sharing what you find on Google or in local searches, I would request you to analyze it yourself.
Being a co-president of Groen does not make her notable. Since she hasn't been elected to any office positions yet, NPOL does not apply. The Belgian news media, like any other news media in the world, are supposed to interview her or get a quote each time she makes a public appearance and these fall under routine coverage. The sources you have shared and subject at its current state does not pass the basic criteria. And the article cannot be merged as it does not pass any of the additional criteria as well. It should either be deleted, redirected to Groen or draftified. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the basic criteria:
"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."
She clearly passes this, with your only objection being that a lot of coverage consists of interviews (instead of profile features?), but this is simply how Belgian media often times tends to work with regards to politicians.
Furthermore [WP:BIO] clearly states:
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."
I'd argue a bit [WP:IAR] applies as well here. Belgian political party presidents occupy such an important part in the Belgian political system that party presidents gain automatic notability similar to that of elected politicians.
The number of sources is only going to rapidly increase over the coming weeks and months, considering the upcoming elections and government formation. 178.51.7.219 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP, Jeraxmoira is saying she doesn't pass that, because these are interviews, and interviews are not independent of the subject. -- asilvering (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to what asilvering mentioned, multiple independent sources are required to pass WP:BIO, but we only have interviews here. You know she isn't notable when you are relying on WP:IAR as your last resort.
  • Belgian political party presidents occupy such an important part in the Belgian political system that party presidents gain automatic notability similar to that of elected politicians. - Notability is not inherited. You need to get a proposal passed in order to argue for automatic notability here.
  • The number of sources is only going to rapidly increase over the coming weeks and months, considering the upcoming elections and government formation. - Case of WP:NOTJUSTYET and WP:FUTURE.
Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Binocular rivalry described by quantum formalism

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

This is an obscure way to model Binocular rivalry that is based around a single paper by physicist Efstratios Manousakis. Practically no research has been done on this subtopic apart from Manousakis's papers and a few followup papers, including one [10] by Henry Stapp that does not seem to be published in a journal. (Some papers, e.g. [11] deal with quantum formalism in other aspects of cognition, but not binocular rivalry.) It is not Wikipedia's job to describe all the experimental details of this paper, and I explained the topic in just a few sentences in the Binocular rivalry article. Since it can be easily condensed, there is no need for the subtopic to have its own article, so it should be redirected to Binocular rivalry. Related topics include Quantum mind and Quantum cognition. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Béatrice d'Hirson

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Keep - reasonable presence in fiction and got reasonable coverage as fictional character regardless obscurity in flesh. - Altenmann >talk 03:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. No sources provided by keep votes, which just boil down to ILIKEIT, not guidelines and sources, let alone sources with indepth content about subject.  // Timothy :: talk  03:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Shazza McKenzie

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

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

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

    Please keep in mind that sources such as Wrestling Observer Newsletter, POST Wrestling, Slam! Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Illustrated and Fightful are considered reliable industry specific secondary sources by Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources and should be included as part of any count of recent sources. For the specific purposes of an article on professional wrestling, these sources are to be treated the same as, say, a newspaper. CeltBrowne (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't consider them extensive coverage. The Sports Illustrated article is mostly her talking about her move to the US and losing money for half of the article, not the greatest either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Analysing sources:Source one [13] doesn't appear to be reliable. The second [14] seems also the same but I am considering the writer who may be an expert. Source three [15] is still unreliable. Source 4 [16] from a reliable source The Sydney Morning Herald was a quite looking like PR post following the underneath writing mentioning her next show. Source five [17] is just a profile and doesn't count up secondary sources. Source six [18] was a quote-like discussion of two other wrestlers which may mention "Shazam". Sources [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] are all "external links". I don need to stress myself on that. [30] is statistics of Sara Del Rey, though still not from a reliable source. Others seems same and no need to say it lacks verifiability! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The second source, Slam! Wrestling, is a reliable source per Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources.
    Cagematch.net is considered reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources for match results, which is what it's being used for.
    You don't mention reliable secondary sources such as Sports Illustrated, Pro Wrestling Illustrated, POST Wrestling, Fightful, and Wrestling Observer Newsletter in your analysis. All those publications are considered the highest tier of reliability on Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources.
    I've now added an hour long interview from Talk is Jericho to the article as well as other articles from Fightful. I hope other editors are noting that someone is making good faith efforts to fix the article on short notice. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are failing to acknowledge the fact the WP:GNG usurps WP:RS when the mentions are trivial or otherwise against the rules - as the Canberra and Sydney Morning Herald links are per prohibition of promotional links for example. These were both addressed in the previous AfD. Safari Scribe's comments are absolutely on point. Match results are not enough to establish notability - reliable source or not and the others are trivial mentions only. Podcasts can be temperamental as such for the record. Extensive coverage is needed and it's still not there. Again - just because a source is reliable doesn't mean the GNG guideline is passed. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CeltBrowne, Sources are measured by it's content and not because it's a reliable source. At some I stances, we've reliable sources publishing unreliable materials. Look at each's content pls. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep She has few appearances on NXT,[31][32] Impact/TNA,[33] AEW All Out 2019 (pre-show),[34] and ROH.[35] As a freelancer and indie wrestler, I think her name is recognized in pro wrestling sources; plus considering wrestling for several promotions,[36] her championships and titles,[37] and PWI rankings.[38] --Mann Mann (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mann Mann, that doesn't cover appearing in SIGCOV. WP:NEXISTS can be in the future in this case. Could there be option for draftifying? Because I can see that smelling! — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You may not be familiar with Pro Wrestling Illustrated or it's Top 500/Top 250 but within WikiProject Professional Wrestling, PWI is considered A) a reliable, secondary source and B) Their Top 500/Top 250 lists are actually considered a very potent source for judging notability. PWI takes its modern Top 250 women list extremely seriously (PWI's annual Top 500 and Top 250 issues are always their best selling issues of the year; their entire business model revolves around it). These lists cover professional wrestlers the entire world over (not just the United States). The higher the listing, the more notable the subject is.
      As Mann Mann linked to, in 2023 (the current most recent edition) PWI listed McKenzie as number 88 on their Top 250. This placement would mean they are classifying her as the 88th most prominent woman in professional wrestling, beating out hundreds of other candidates from across the US, Japan, Mexico, UK, EU, and other wrestling hotbeds.
      Please note, the PWI 500 is not simply a throwaway "list"; it is an entire issue of PWI and most of the those listed will receive at least a blurb explaining who they are and why they have been positioned on the list. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pro Wrestling Illustrated's top list does not provide significant coverage for anyone outside the top ten or even just the number 1 - and even then it's debatable. Your comment is laced with original research and again presumes that WP:RS is enough for notability. It is not. There must be significant coverage or the source fails the WP:GNG test and is therefore not notable. How many times does this need to be said for you to understand this? Addicted4517 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Per WP:SIGCOV
        • Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
          McKenzie does not have to be the main topic of the Top 250 list in order for this to count towards SIGCOV, particular as the list in-of-itself is a reference point who is notable within professional wrestling (particularly as other reliable secondary sources give extensive coverage to who makes the Top 500 and Top 250). This in the same sense that no one song is the main topic of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, but their inclusion in a list from a reliable secondary source is significant.
          Also while the PWI blurbs can be short, they are not "trivial mentions" in the sense that is outlined in WP:SIGCOV (The Clinton/Three Blind Mice example). The blurbs directly discuss their subjects and outline what they are achieving at the time. Each blurb is directly discussing their subject (as opposed to the Three Blind Mice example in which they are decidedly not the subject of an article about Bill Clinton).
          Pro Wrestling Illustrated's top list does not provide significant coverage for anyone outside the top ten or even just the number 1 - and even then it's debatable
          The 2023 edition of the PWI Top 250 makes clear[39] that PWI has a strict criteria for deciding who is and is not eligible for their list. An entire committee legitimately debates who should be included and where. Each entry on each wrestler outlines what they have achieved in the year and gives an outline of who they are. These are decidedly not the "trivial mentions" outlined in WP:SIGCOV. They are short but succinct explanations of why that person is significant within professional wrestling for that year.

          This is all besides the fact that in addition to her Top 250 ranking, PWI also gave dedicated coverage to McKenzie in this [40] article, which is included in her Wikipedia article and should be noted towards WP:SIGCOV as well as the other dedicated articles/interviews such as Slam![41], Fightful, Siren Sports, and Talk is Jericho.
          Is it the case that this article would be improved by more examples of dedicated coverage of the subject? Yes
          Is it the case that this article has little or no instances of dedicated coverage? No. It does have several instances of dedicated coverage by reliable secondary sources.

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please weigh in on the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benson Y. Parkinson

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

Doesn't meet GNG due to his accomplishment or starting a forum associated with a church Big Money Threepwood (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to KJJC-TV. There's a consensus here not to retain (between nominator, two bolded opinions and one comment), choosing redirect as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KINV-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Delete or merge with sister KJJC-TV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Meitus

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously unreferenced article about a lawyer in the music industry, and added references. I have failed to find much significant coverage from reliable sources, however. The article in the Indianapolis Business Journal is significant coverage, but the others are passing references. I considered whether inclusion on the Billboard list would demonstrate his notability, but that is a long list (I make it 300+ names) so I am not convinced that is enough. Redirection to Carrie Newcomer might also be an option. Tacyarg (talk) 01:32, 8 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 Eastern Ukraine campaign#Avdiivka breakthrough (January 2024–present). Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Orlivka

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

Not notable. Fighting here is irrelevant, this is a continuation of the Battle of Avdiivka (2023–2024). After Avdiivka fell on 17 February Russian forces continued advancing until they were stopped on three villages as fighting became stalled again. These are Orlivka, Stepove and Tonenke. There is no need for this page, it can be covered either in the Battle of Avdiivka article or in the broader Eastern Ukraine campaign.

Uncountable content forks have been created as a result of this war and they've been continously deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Tokmak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chuhuiv, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dvorichna, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Krasnohorivka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Russian offensive and many many more. Super Ψ Dro 00:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge to aforementioned article. There's no reason to list the end state of a previous battle as a new battle. Unless a new breakthrough occurs (which will then likely earn a new, different name) there is no reason to have this article. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:36, 8 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 Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. ✗plicit 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017 Lahore suicide bombing

AfDs for this article:
April 2017 Lahore suicide bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the coverage is from April 2017. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the last 20 discussions we have had, merge applicable content to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017, where it is already listed, without detail or sourcing. Deleting it would leave that unverified. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since the primary deletion rationale was that this article was unsourced, the issue has been addressed so I'm closing this discussion as Keep. A possible rename can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 00:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New England Classic (Nationwide Tour event)

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

My nomination for this page to speedy deleted was decline, but I will recapitulate my points, since they are valid -- there are no sources here, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up almost nothing related to this tour. Failure of WP:NSPORTS and WP:Verifiability (and potentially WP:NOR, given the absence of any sources). JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All information on the page can be found here (which I have added to the article as a source).
Not a justification for keeping or deleting this particular article, but all other tournaments in the tour from 1990 to 1993 seem to have their own articles with similar levels of notability. If this is deleted, then it seems like the others should be too. XabqEfdg (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources added. Tewapack (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article should probably be renamed, given that "Nationwide Tour" was never the name of the tour when the event was played. It was the name when the article was created, but the tour has changed names twice since then. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 04:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_April_8&oldid=1217835423"