Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 28	March 30 >

Guide to deletion

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. Owen× ☎ 00:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congress Hotel (Portland, Oregon)

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

Hotel does not appear to meet notability guidelines. OiYoiYoink (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Oregon. OiYoiYoink (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think this? I quickly and easily found several sources that suggest the building is notable. The architect is notable and the article could be expanded with details about the building's design and construction, ownership and other tenants, and demolition. Not to mention, some of the building's arches were converted into a gazebo structure that's included on the city's Historic Resource Inventory. This is an obvious keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am glad you found some sources and enhanced the article. OiYoiYoink (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OiYoiYoink Thanks! Do you still believe the topic is not notable? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe write more than a single sentence with a single source when creating articles and you wouldn't have to sigh on your talk page so much. These nominations aren't so unnecessary if they result in the expansion that should have happened in the first place. Reywas92^Talk 20:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've said this to me ad nauseam. Call me old fashioned, but I think WP:BEFORE should be followed instead of just jumping to AfD at every opportunity. Also, I would appreciate if you would take my user talk page off your watchlist because you clearly follow me around and target my work, even when I have asked you to leave me alone many times. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep The sources currently in the article don't show any notability whatsoever (listicles typically don't count), it's usually easy to track that information down for notable buildings. And we definitely have lots of crufty Portland business articles on this site that we keep because of local consensus. There's a photo in the book Vanishing Portland but the caption isn't really significant coverage. I may have missed historical articles though - if I have, please ping me. SportingFlyer T·C 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer You have! Check out this book. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with that book is that it's not necessarily discriminate - it talks about a number of different hotels in Portland. I've written articles on several demolished hotels across the world now, and I always look at what newspapers of the time have said about the hotel in order to demonstrate notability. The only one we have at the moment is that it hosted a convention, which does not demonstrate notability. There should be articles about its opening and closing, especially during the period in which it was built, which will require some sort of source search. At the moment, it's sort of pieced together on the back of sugar packets. I'd be happy to change to a keep if better sourcing can be found. SportingFlyer T·C 22:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer There are dozens of sources at the Oregonian archives accessible via Multnomah County Library. Thousands if you count solely passing mentions. I'll add some to the entry as I have time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know when you've added a couple, will change to keep if they're sufficiently substantial (such as the opening.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing! I added "Hotel demise - end of an era" already, but I probably won't be able to add more tonight. Other things to do! Thanks for being willing to revisit ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to keep, discovered the Oregonian quoted a contemporaneous article in a discussion on its closure which clearly showed significant coverage like you would see for a notable early 20th century demolished hotel. SportingFlyer T·C 23:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Travel and tourism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- the article now meets WP:GNG after the latest round of edits. I retract my prior delete vote. WizardGamer775 (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Delete- this hotel is not notable. See the sources- it's just listings. The sources do not show why it is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. See WP:MILL. WizardGamer775 (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not accurate at all. ~~Thanks for the drive-by delete vote.~~ ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your disagreement is duly noted. And for you to claim that it is a drive-by delete vote is highly inappropriate. WizardGamer775 (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this just a "listing"? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't show that it's notable. WizardGamer775 (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. I'm going to move on. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. WizardGamer775 (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the expansion of the page and sources occurring since the nomination. Now easily meets GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources added seem sufficient to keep the article now. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it me or does it seem like a lot of Portland companies and business articles get nominated for AFDs compared to organizations in other major cities in the U.S.? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz: My perception is that Another Believer, who has 200+ featured and good articles and lists to their name, has a strong interest in creating articles about Portland (Oregon)–related content (among other topics), and often creates more articles than they have time and energy to fully develop. Many of those articles are so short and stubby that they attract the attention of people who, for whatever reason, do not perform a full WP:BEFORE search but instead go straight to AFD. Why they do this is not for me to explain. All of that said, some of Another Believer's article topics have failed my cursory WP:BEFORE searches, which leads me to think that there are probably some topics of questionable notability among this prolific editor's thousands of contributions, expansions, and creations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the WP:AUD prong of WP:NCORP, my sense is Portland has more local businesses with articles than probably should exist on here with sourcing only local to Portland. But this is a long closed business, and large early 20th-century hotels were often notable... SportingFlyer T·C 15:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the excellent expansion by Another Believer, WP:HEY. Toughpigs (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the new expansion has made it into an article worth keeping, it passes WP:GNG along with the newly added sources. TheTankman (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now it's been shown through sources that the topic is notable and passes the GNG. The nomination was made when the article consisted of a couple of sentences and a single source.[1] WP:BEFORE suggests a fairly basic Google search is sufficient. The search results generated will not be identical for everyone as the searcher's location and other factors are taken into account in the results presented, so it shouldn't be assumed that a proper BEFORE was not carried out. Rupples (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer, Rupples and others. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W41AP

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ohio. Let'srun (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: in theory, there is at least an outside chance that a 32-year low-power television station, moreso than many of the newer all-diginet LPTVs, might attain the needed significant coverage to meet the GNG and merit an article. But it was also the television station of the Sandusky Register — which, if nothing else, ensures that the Register would not be an independent source here. I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of nominal merger with the Register's article if there is enough sourcing to merit even that (though being tagged as unsourced since 2011 is not exactly an encouraging sign), but a separate article seems hard to justify at this point. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 30 March 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 Back in the DHSS. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fuckin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus

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

I'm a major Half Man Half Biscuit fan, as anyone who can work out where I got my username from will realise. I've created several dozen {{R from song}}s to the band's albums. I didn't mark any as {{R with possibilities}} because I didn't think any had them. This album track and crowd favourite is no different, much as I've enjoyed it for nearly 40 years. The sources are WP:REFBOMBINGs of track listings and gig reviews. None suffices to meet WP:NSONG.

Redirect to Back in the DHSS as {{R from song}} while keeping the categories.

I'm bringing this article to AfD rather than WP:BOLDly WP:BLARing it because it's been around since 2009. I haven't notified the article creator because they were WP:BLOCKed in 2018 for reasons which at passing glance look irrelevant to this discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. I love it, but it's just an album track with nothing in particular to merit a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. I know this song but wouldn't expect it to have its own entry outside the album page. Orange sticker (talk) 12:18, 31 March 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 23:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W63AU

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

Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:53, 29 March 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!} 07:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Uegama

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

WP:BLP of a cinematographer, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for cinematographers.
The only notability claim being attempted here is that his work exists, which isn't enough in and of itself -- the notability test for a cinematographer doesn't vest in listing his film and television credits, it vests in showing third-party reliable source media coverage externally validating the significance of his work: coverage about him, evidence that he has won or been nominated for major awards for his work, and on and so forth.
But this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, like his IMDb profile and the self-published website of his own employer, with the closest thing to a reliable source being a specialty trade magazine that just links to his name being present on the cover without showing any evidence that he was the subject of any written content inside the magazine — and even if somebody can verify better than I've been able to that he was the subject of an actual article, it would still take more than just one source to get him over WP:GNG anyway.
And even on his IMDb profile, the only awards listed there are regional (Leo) or specialty (Canadian Society of Cinematographers) awards that would be fine to add here if the article were sourced properly, but are not prominent enough to hand him an instant notability freebie without proper sourcing.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 29 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!} 23:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just not enough coverage for this individual. Semi-RS, a repost from Mashable via CBS News [2] and that's the best one I could find .I don't see notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 03:04, 6 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.

Chloe Lewis (figure skater)

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. I withdraw this nomination. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Oregon. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 30 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!} 23:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a useful short article on a skater who was successful in international junior skating tournaments; her best result was the Youth Olympics. Articles such as Figure skating at the Winter Youth Olympics work in their current format because there are articles on most of the medalists; there is therefore no need to say anything about the medalists in such articles. Deleting articles such as this one, through an over-zealous application of rules to borderline cases such as this one, has a detrimental effect on other articles.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, as mentioned below.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass wp:gng Big Money Threepwood (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Daniel (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSKATE and fails WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 1, consensus was to relist for further discussion. I will strike the sockpuppetry above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Previous votes failed to assess the article's sourcing. At the time of the nomination, it was sufficient to pass WP:GNG—namely this profile in the Oregonian and this briefer one in the Colorado Gazette. The nominator has also since said I felt my original nomination was flawed, given that GNG tops an SNG. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to close this as a "speedy keep" because there are additional "delete" votes, but I would endorse this being closed as "keep". Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG per the references provided by Hamelton. These in-depth profiles offer SIGCOV of the subject. Frank Anchor 00:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS and therefore the subject passes WP:GNG. TarnishedPath^talk 06:31, 22 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 23:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Elmazi

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

Played 1 professional league game then disappeared. No sign of WP:SPORTBASIC. My own searches yielded only database sources and one trivial mention in Panorama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Bhivuti45 (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, fails WP:SPORTBASIC—one league appearance in five years. Anwegmann (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as three databases, no source. Problem of SIGCOV! but may meet still meet notability in the future! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SPORTBASIC Robertjamal12 ~🔔 14:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Asamsum

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

Despite playing some matches for Persiwa Wamena, this footballer doesn't seem to meet WP:SPORTBASIC. The article is currently nothing more than a stats stub and my own searches yielded only Metrobanjar, a squad list mention, Banjarmasin, a trivial mention, and Viva, another trivial mention. Soccerway and other stats sites have his name as 'Asmsamsum', which also yields no good results. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Several searches literally brought up nothing at all beyond a loose reference in Football Manager 17. Fails WP:SIGCOV at the very least. Anwegmann (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:46, 30 March 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!} 01:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Snedeker

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

Fails WP:BIO notability tests. This man seems to be of interest to his descendants (because he is the earliest known person with the family name), but he has not received significant coverage in published sources and there is not indication of his being important outside the family or a very local context (the article's best assertion for his notability is that he was one of the several founders of a colonial village). The three books cited in the article are a book (probably self-published) of family history and genealogy and two books of the history of the area where he lived. Before starting this AfD, I found online copies of the two history books, identified places where his name was mentioned, and added citations to the article. I found only peripheral mentions of him. He is also covered on the genealogical site WikiTree at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Snedeker-9 in an article that has far more information and reference citations than the Wikipedia article, but nothing I see there indicates significant published coverage or demonstrates his importance to people who are not his descendants. Orlady (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Netherlands, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reading earlier through Google Books, I saw a lot of mentions under four different names. There were one or more persons named after him but this was easy enough to separate. I agree with Orlady that the length of coverage is not a strength. The cumulative coverage, continued interest, and the fact there are no BLP concerns for this 17th-century historical figure do work in the article's favor. Also, while the descendants and other regional history buffs seem to pay attention to this figure (as already mentioned by Orlady), they do not try to make him into something he wasn't as we sometimes see. It's a healthy interest. I am leaning keep and would appreciate it if user:Ruud Buitelaar could also take a look, as Dutch and history. gidonb (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. For the record, much of what you see in the current version of the article is content that I added to give the stub article a fighting chance. In the article version I found, the article claimed he was one of 3 founders of Midwout (a "fact" that was not supported by the histories cited; it appears to me that he was merely one of the three men whose names somebody remembered), and the main thrust of the article was on the meaning of the name Midwout. That's content that arguably could be moved into the article about Midwout. Orlady (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TBT, I hadn't examined the edit history, as I usually do. Just the product as is and the potential sources by NEXIST. Looking at the history, I am impressed and not surprised since I'm a longtime fan of your work around Wikipedia! gidonb (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Gidonb for inviting me to the discussion. I think @Orlady did an amazing job researching the subject. Jan Snedeker´s claim to fame is being a founder of Midwood but if history books about the New Netherlands colony hardly mention him, then it is not Wikipedia´s task to rewrite the books and insert his name. That said, I would love to see a publication about Snedeker and his life and works in New Netherlands. Until then, I support the delete vote. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only thing I can see for notability is a magistrate, but we don't have much on that for sourcing. [3] seems to be a fictionalized account of his life, but beyond that, there isn't much. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:58, 6 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. There is a clear consensus not to delete the article. A discussion about a potential merge can continue on the article's Talk page, and doesn't require an AfD. Owen× ☎ 23:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Megaton (Fallout 3)

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

Non-notable, and if it is, why aren't there articles on other, equally notable towns in the Fallout series? Why just Megaton? --Bumpf said this! ^{ooh clicky clicky!} [insert witty meta-text on wiki-sigs here] 15:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --Bumpf said this! ^{ooh clicky clicky!} [insert witty meta-text on wiki-sigs here] 15:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per WP:MERGEREASON. There's not enough sourcing or content present to sustain a stand alone article, especially if these overly long and drawn out direct quotes are trimmed down to a reasonable length. Really feels like it was particularly dragged out to create the illusion of needing a separate article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might do a WP:BEFORE and see if I can salvage this. This article relies on post-release sourcing, which suggests there is a wellspring of contemporary commentary, particularly in the treatment of the Power of the Atom questline that may justify its inclusion. That questline in particular was a major design anchor for the game and recieved specific praise. But I'm mindful until I find that sourcing this has a bit of a tenor of WP:ITSNOTABLE. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator) I fully admit the current state of the article's sourcing is not up to par with the now-extremely-stringent WP:VG criteria for a standalone article. But there are certainly numerous reliable sources that talk specifically about the now-infamous Megaton and its highly notable decision. The AV Club and GamesRadar+ are already in the article, and TheGamer has yet to be integrated into it as it was written in 2023(!). There is also a VICE article that is not integrated as a reference yet. There is a ScreenRant article here as well, and I know some people do consider it proof of notability, even if others don't. In conclusion, these are WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems and I will try to expand the sourcing to fulfill the modern criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also mention that the sole argument of the nom is that the page is "non-notable" which I have soundly refuted, so the nomination is already incorrect per WP:SK#3. Why there are "not other articles" on other notable towns is assumedly because nobody has written them yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Found yet another article in Destructoid and a news mention of Megaton's explosion getting removed from the Japanese version here. Clearly I wasn't thorough enough in my initial search for sources, which I regret, but it should be clear that this is a notable page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I got this. I should be providing a sourcelist in this discussion quite shortly. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Performed a non-exhaustive WP:BEFORE that illustrates that the location is notable and contains content that has been subject to enough significant commentary, paired with the other mentioned sources earlier, to merit an article:
- In terms of magazines: Not as good as I hoped. That said, there's no shortage of contemporary sources that provide brief non-WP:SIGCOV praise or commentary on Megaton and the Power of the Atom questline, both as a highlight of the depth of locations and side-missions,^[1] or the open-ended moral and gameplay choices available to the player.^[2]^[3] Play briefly described the questline as being one of the "best moments" experienced on the PlayStation as one of the "earliest and most challenging" and character-defining decisions made in the game.^[4] However! Edge provided an in-depth article on Megaton, outlining how it "epitomises" the game's "grand adventure", describing the Power of the Atom quest as "game-defining" and analysing the impacts of player choice on the game.^[5]
- In terms of books: Seems there's ample analysis. Harvard music professor William Cheng dedicated several pages to recounting and analysing the design of the game in reflecting the ethics and player agency experienced when detonating the bomb.^[6] Tom Bissell briefly praised Megaton as an example of the game establishing the "buffet of choices" and open-ended "narrative viability" available to the player in the early stages of the game.^[7] Marist College games professor Karen Schrier discusses and analyses how the game approaches moral problems in its Atom questline, critiquing the binary approach taken as "too moral" in its use of temptation to direct the player to good and bad consequences.^[8] University of Groningen Media and cultural studies professor Lars de Wildt et al. discuss in depth the Children of the Atom in Megaton as a contemporary example of a new trope of post-apocalyptic faith in literature.^[9]
Merge per Sergecross73. While the sources presented above are solid, they are not entirely about the location. They are about the narrative design of Fallout 3 or one of its questlines, and is therefore tangential to the location itself. Article, as it stands right now, is incomprehensible to readers who have no basic knowledge about Fallout 3, its themes and lores. OceanHok (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure about how a quest that revolves solely around saving or destroying a single location of the game is "tangential to the location itself". It is in fact intrinsically about that location and the bomb in the middle of Megaton, saying it is unrelated to Megaton and only about "narrative design" is stretching it at the best of times.

Any lack of context is a surmountable problem, but I'm just not seeing "incomprehensible". The lede clearly explains what the article is about and where it's from - a fictional town from the Fallout 3 game. Are you trying to suggest people don't know what a town, fiction, or a video game is? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to belabor the above point, but is the original comment's suggestion that the significant coverage would not support an article on Megaton but would substantiate an article for The Power of the Atom? If the article meets deletion, this might be a way to salvage some sourcing. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the idea of changing it to "The Power of the Atom" if truly necessary (in the vein of other similar articles like No Russian or Cat hair mustache puzzle that are solely about a "quest"), but I don't think it's necessary because there's so much discussion about Megaton itself as a town in the game world aside from the one quest. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. If the AfD is successful I will have a go of drafting - you're welcome to help. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't actually believe the article should solely be about the quest, as AV Club and GamesRadar+'s articles are more focused on the town itself, so we'll see what other opinions say. There is the argument that if the article was solely about the town and not the quest, it wouldn't pass GNG, but I think the quest is so linked to the town that doesn't matter.

If it comes down to it remaining as an article, though, I don't mind modifying it in such a way. The quest itself did get comparatively more coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but just planning for contingencies. Despite the above I agree the entire point of the town's concept and design is the bomb in the centre of it, which is inextricably linked with the quest to detonate or defuse it. It would be a little baffling to talk about Power of the Atom without first talking about Megaton. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sergecross73 and OceanHok. I dug hard before chiming in to see what I could find through old development commentary and concept art in the event there's something to expand here, something to illustrate it as tangible beyond the game for readers to be able to comprehend it, but not really any luck.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand using the identified sources to cover the quest as well as the place. Sources 2 and 5 here are enough for a bare keep, and much of the rest demonstrate there's potential to write about the ethical in-game choice posed here. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE references

^ Penny, Rachel (December 2008). "Fallout 3". Official UK PlayStation Magazine. No. 26. p. 54.
^ "10 Ways to be a Complete Bastard in Fallout 3". PlayStation Magazine. No. 17. March 2009. p. 86.
^ Porter, Will (October 2007). "Welcome to Vault 101". PC Zone. No. 185. pp. 44–9.
^ "The 200 Greatest PlayStation Moments". Play. No. 200. January 2011. p. 29.
^ "Places: Megaton". Edge. Christmas 2011. pp. 126–7.
^ Cheng, William (2014). "A Time at the End of the World". Sound Play: Video Games and the Musical Imagination. Oxford University Press. p. 4252. ISBN 978-0-19-996997-5.
^ Bissell, Tom (2011). "Fallout". Extra Lives: Why Video Games Mattter. Vintage Books. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-307-47431-5.
^ Schrier, Karen; Gibson, David (2010). "Moral Sensitivity and Megaton in Fallout 3". Ethics and Game Design: Teaching Values Through Play. Information Science Reference. pp. 41–45. ISBN 978-1-61520-845-6.
^ de Wildt, Lars; Aupers, Stef; Krassen, Cindy; Coanda, Iulia (2018). "'Things Greater than Thou': Post-Apocalyptic Religion in Games". Religions. 9 (6): 169.

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 with Stereotypes of British people. I have seriously considered the proposal to transwiki the content to Wiktionary since Wiktionary does accommodate definitions of various idioms as well as words. However, Wiktionary has a Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion policy or guideline, that requires "attestation" to verify that the term or phrasing is in widespread or at least durable use and I have been unable to verify that the expression "Plucky Brit" is an idiom that meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

Many of the listed sources don't use the term "Plucky Brit" at all, and even the ones that do, such as the cited BBC article don't seem to use it idiomatically. Rather, it is the adjective "plucky" to describe the noun "Brit". Defining a "Plucky Brit" as a Brit who is plucky doesn't bring any new meanings that require further definitions. The Times article is behind a paywall, and may be using the term idiomatically based on the capitalization in the title, but even so "durable use" on Wiktionary calls for at least three examples of the expression being used.

The other WP:ATD option that was suggested was merging and redirecting to the "Stereotypes of British people". Although this option was crossed out by its proposer, on the belief that the transwiki option had more support, this option is consistent with policies and guidelines. A number of the cited in the articles do indeed explicity refer to the "plucky" sportsman as "stereotypically" British, so including this content there is in line with WP:V and WP:NOR. I am closing this discussion accordingly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plucky Brit

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

Seems like WP:NOTDICT. Found this article while trying to de-orphan, only other mention of this phrase relates to a military serviceman so definition is not even accurate. Orange sticker (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Sports, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on deletion, which is unfortunate because someone took the time to source this well and I think it's a good article but it doesn't really fit Wikipedia's mission.

UptonSincere (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry, this made me realise I hadn't notified the creator of this article - rectified now. Orange sticker (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move and inter-wiki redirect to wikt:plucky Brit, I think most of this article could be salvaged on Wiktionary. The quotes and references could be used as attestations. That way the work wouldn't go to waste. --Habst (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the quotes in the article doesn't even say "plucky Brits", they say "[British] plucky losers" which I think Wikitionary would consider to be a different phrase. ---- D'n'B-t -- 15:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DandelionAndBurdock, thanks, what do you think about adding that specific quote to wikt:plucky then, and adding the rest of the references (which do specifically say "plucky brit") to wikt:plucky Brit? --Habst (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Habst, I'd support adding that particular quote and others to wikt:plucky: the sources suggest to me that the word plucky is an adjective that can be applied to "looser", "sports team"[4] and "Italian"[5] just as easily as Brit. Maybe an entry could also be created for Plucky Brit in particular but not being familiar with Wikit's inclusion policies I shaln't comment on that. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATD: Merge into Stereotypes of British people, which seems like a good category for this sort of topic. --Habst (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habst, you present two different outcomes you'd like to see happen. Could you cross out the one that is your "less preferred" choice? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, thank you. Given that there is some consensus for my first proposed outcome, I will cross out this one. But I wouldn't really say I have a preference for either, I think they are both good outcomes. --Habst (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 03:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment

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

Search turns up lots of profiles in charity directories but I don't see any substantive independent coverage of this organization, fails WP:NORG. Reywas92^Talk 14:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:21, 29 March 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 23:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIGCOV. It sounds like a worth organization, but a search of newspaper articles reveals one single article. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Metal Apocalypse

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

It's just someone's website/blog hosted on Bandcamp. Neither source is reliable independent significant coverage, nor can I find such. Notability not established. Reywas92^Talk 14:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 14:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Textbook non-notability 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 16:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO. I can only find links to the facebook page and other social media for the organization. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just a random blog. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Cope

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

As noted in WP:NPOL, Wikipedia doesn't normally consider borough councillors notable enough for a separate article, unless they've received significant press coverage. Likewise, being a candidate for national office doesn't normally meet WP:NPOL, absent substantial coverage in secondary sources, and I can find only routine local press coverage. Wikishovel (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and England. Wikishovel (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES, county-level legislators, including borough councilors in this context, are not presumed to be notable. However, exceptions may apply if they receive significant coverage as outlined in WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, which is not the case for this individual. Ckfasdf (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL. Bhivuti45 (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Wade

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

This is a WP:BLP1E. No notability outside of that. TarnishedPath^talk 14:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Georgia (U.S. state), and Texas. TarnishedPath^talk 14:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO1E states The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. Ckfasdf (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor coverage Hi Bree! (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC) sock strike[reply]
Delete will second the WP:BLP1E claim here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP and not encyclopedic. We are not X formerly known as Twitter. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a perfect example of WP:BLP1E. There's actually not enough to even create a substantial article. AusLondonder (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG (the sources below aren't notable). Created by sockpuppet. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Strong Keep. This is a featured article in Indonesian Wikipedia with plenty of sources in that language.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Esprit15d: Upon examining the nomination discussions of this featured article on Indonesian Wikipedia, we'll find that the article on Indonesian Wikipedia is essentially a translation of the one on English Wikipedia. This conclusion is based on explicit statements made by the nominator. Ckfasdf (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Islam, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The individual's purported notability primarily arises from orchestrated efforts by a sockmaster and their accomplices to boost his profile across platforms, including Wikipedia. However, his importance appears to be largely restricted to Bengkalis Regency, with minimal recognition beyond this local area, let alone nationwide in Indonesia. While he may have some standing within the local Muslim scholar community, his broader significance is dubious. It's worth noting that the main source cited in the article, Saputra 2020, focuses on the 21 ulamas in Bengkalis regency rather than specifically highlighting him. Similarly, the other references in the article lacks substantial individual attention directed at him. Moreover, if he truly held significant status in Bengkalis regency, his name would likely be documented in regional history books. However, upon examining historical texts issued by ministry of education and culture, such as these in books 1 and 2, his name is notably absent. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He also lacks significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV, with the only sources about him being this book, and a passing mention in this website. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Esprit15d. This subject was one of the founding father of Riau province so there's no reason for the deletion just because his contribution focused in a regency. Apart from being the founding father of Riau, he was known for his contribution as captain in leading resistance movement with Indonesian National Army and for being a long time member of Masyumi Party. The subject also received a national award as a Regional Hero of Riau Province, i said Regional Hero an award which is considered as a national award because it must go through a strict file selection so that it can be determined by the House of Representatives and war veteran medal from the National Daily Council which is very sufficient to established the article notability. He also passed WP:GNG by received a significant coverage from atleast three different sources. And as for sources notability, is there a valid data to show that the source is not notable or is it just based on an assumption? Hi Bree! (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Comment struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nominator, fails WP:GNG.Dejaqo (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [6]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [7] [8]. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC) — 202.43.93.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pass WP:SIGCOV. Found a book titled Toko Pejuang Daerah Riau which was published by Riau Province Social Service in August 2023 that did some depth coverage on him. The book explains his career and service journey starting from 1929 in the fields of politics, social organizations, and as theologist. If only there's a way to make that book available online. 36.69.119.29 (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC) — 36.69.119.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:10, 4 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. The chief argument for the Delete views here is the vague definition of what constitutes a "cult film", therefore failing to meet NLIST. Countering that, the Keep views pointed out that the list isn't of cult films, but of films described by reliable sources as "cult", which is well-defined criterion, similar to that of List of films considered the worst. This argument was not successfully rebutted by the Delete views. Whether the article needs to be renamed to reflect this distinction can be discussed on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 23:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cult films

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly devined, vague, subjective definiting. There is a huge number of films with huge popularity and large fanbase. The previous nom was noted for del unanimously and arguments remain the same. - Altenmann >talk 14:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You may have to tag all the individual articles. "Cult" is a very broad and somewhat vague term. All it means is that there are some people who really like it! That it retained popularity among some people after its release, or that it may not have a particularly broad fan base. But this is not an intrinsic or distinguishing characteristic. When the inclusion criteria here is that one person used a certain term once to describe a movie, that isn't necessarily a relevant commonality or a useful description. This is simply too broad of a concept to justify us maintaining such a large context-free list. Cult film could use some subsections for readability, but that's the place to go for significant examples and appropriate context of what makes them cult films. Navigating though two dozen pages with dozens of entries, most of whose own articles don't even mention what makes them cult films, is simply indiscriminate and not useful to readers. Reywas92^Talk 21:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The other 27 articles linked to should be included in this. Anyway, as I said in the last two AFDs for this, if the reliable sources refer to it as a cult film, that's what we go by, not personal opinions. Every entry has a reference. Dream Focus 22:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the page has resisted THREE Afds it may be that there's no need for a 4th, I would have thought. Can we reformat the title of this page so that this is made clear: it's not the second nomination, it's the 4th! WP:NLIST mentions that lists are notable if their subject has received coverage as a set. It has. One click is enough imv to attest of the notability of this list:

And so on.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all listicles, and do little to establish notability. In any case, none of these pass the smell test for reliability, which I'll expand on more below. Hell, the Rolling Stone one isn't even about movies, but media in general. They include Andy Kaufman for crissakes. You are also mistaken; it only survived two of those AFDs...it was deleted the first time around. None of which particularly matters per WP:LASTTIME. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then click on the Google Books link above. You will find various books covering cult films as a set. The term is not subjective and can be well-defined (etc, etc, etc, etc). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think these sources would be great for Cult film, but they don't justify 27 pages with 2,334 films listed without context. We should absolutely have a good discussion of key examples of films with the strongest cult followings, but a list of any film for which this descriptor has been used in passing just becomes indiscriminate with little utility. Even if people have provided a definition for the term, that doesn't mean it's used consistently or establishes it as a particular genre. That writer defined it, but Cult film is clear there are inclusive and exclusive definitions and that there is "difficulty in defining the term and subjectivity of what qualifies"! I think the article's descriptor "Overly broad usage of the term has resulted in controversy, as purists state it has become a meaningless descriptor applied to any film that is the slightest bit weird or unconventional; others accuse Hollywood studios of trying to artificially create cult films or use the term as a marketing tactic. Modern films are frequently stated to be an "instant cult classic", occasionally before they are released" shows how pointless this huge set of lists has become. Going though Template:Films by genre many of thes lists are quite large, but specific genres are clearer-cut and based on the films themselves rather than the various ways in which they could be received. Reywas92^Talk 23:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this is a vague, subjective descriptor term that's applied loosely, without any widely agreed-upon definition. That one random author happens to call something a cult classic is meaningless. There are no reliable sources for determining what qualifies as a cult film, because there are no criteria by which anyone can judge it objectively, and it's not as if there's any scholarly debate about what merits inclusion and what doesn't. The "sources" listed above are all fluff pieces of little value. This is bottom-of-the-barrel stuff, even by Wikipedia standards. Nuke it from orbit; it's the only way to be sure. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- what is the topic of this list? Is it "list of cult films" as the title implies? Because if so, WP:LISTCRIT states "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." And I think it's pretty clear that this most definitely fails here, as I and others have been trying to point out.
But wait!, you say (and DF says above), we just go by teh reliable sourcez!!one!. But this just circles back to the earlier point -- there are no reliable sources for determining "cult"ness of a film, because it's a vague, subjective term without a clear definition. So what?, you say again, if a source says it's a cult film, then that's an unambiguous criterion!. But now you've changed the topic of the list to "list of films that have been called cult films" instead. And that most definitely fails NLIST and is pretty WP:INDISCRIMINATE too.
You might think I'm splitting hairs or lawyering here, but I say this is a pretty vital distinction to make for keeping dreck lists like this out of Wikipedia, and for very good reason. Because invariably, lists like this turn into dumping grounds of every film anyone can find that the adjective "cult" has been applied to, and such lists have precisely zero encyclopedic value. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be a "dumping ground" if you manage the list correctly. Also, your reading of WP:LSC is incorrect, it specifically allows for Subjective criteria: In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed.. GreenC 15:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a dumping ground. Even after all the pleading for keeping at the last AFD, nothing has been done to improve that, and there's no reason to expect it ever will. Ant it doesn't matter anyway, because this isn't a valid list in the first place, per LISTCRIT and LISTN as I noted immediately above. I think you're cherry picking LISTCRIT in such a way as to make it sound like it favors keeping, when it very plainly states what I said about clear, unambiguous criteria. And again, as I said, there are no reliable sources, because there is nothing even remotely approaching a standard definition of "cult"ness. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you, I would start a talk page discussion that proposes an extremely narrow inclusion criteria, then you can delete 90% of it and be happy. Then every time someone tries to add something again, and it doesn't meet the criteria, delete it. You have many options that don't require topic deletion. I do this all the time in many lists. I set tight criteria, delete everything else, and delete editors constantly who try to add things. This is what it takes. But deleting at a topic-level doesn't work because there is demand for a list like this and you will be wasting your time at AfD forever getting nowhere. Even if you delete the topic, it will probably get recreated all over again, because the demand is there. So you can either go with the flow and control it, or waste your time battling people and accomplishing nothing of value. And if this sounds unappetizing (it's a lot of work either way) walk away and ignore it, wait for someone else. -- GreenC 18:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what makes a film "cult" is very subjective and there isn't a widely accepted definition of the term. Even if reliable sources call it a cult film, that's still using that source's own definition of "cult" because again, it is not a clearly defined term in the slightest. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question What are the WP:LISTCRITERIA here? Absent inclusion criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources, this is fundamentally a non-starter. TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says: In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources. Many sources list cult films. -- GreenC 15:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really answer the question: what are the criteria here, exactly? TompaDompa (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See you on the talk page to work it out. -- GreenC 17:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, there are none at present. That's a major problem, I'm sure you will agree. List criteria are an indispensable part of creating articles like this. They are the foundation such lists must be built upon, not an optional step that can simply be skipped with the hope of working it out at a later point in time. It's the equivalent of writing a prose article with an undefined scope. Experience has shown (see e.g. Talk:List of fictional antiheroes#List criteria) that even when there is a genuine concerted effort to come up with some kind of reasonable list criteria post-AfD, a consensus set of criteria is not necessarily settled upon. Kicking this can down the road because of a presumption that proper criteria can in theory be created is a recipe for ending up back here in a few years with no progress done whatsoever—indeed, despite the title Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films (2 nomination), this is in fact the third AfD for the article (and the fourth AfD for this title—the first discussion resulted in deletion). There was a 2018 AfD that resulted in the article being kept—the idea being that the problems could be fixed by coming up with proper criteria. There was another AfD in 2019 that resulted in the article being split (for size reasons, I gather)—and with general agreement that significant additional cleanup is required per the closer. There was also talk page discussion in 2019 specifically about trying to come up with proper list criteria that went more-or-less nowhere—see Talk:List of cult films/Archive 1#Inclusion criteria and other matters. This makes the whole argument that we just need to work it out fall very, very flat to me—that approach demonstrably has not worked here. Compiling a list like this without proper criteria is plain WP:Original research by way of WP:Editorial synthesis even if the individual entries have sources—the conceit is that the listed films are somehow meaningfully part of a set, but what that set is is undefined and arbitrarily determined inconsistently by individual editors in the act of adding and/or removing entries. And that's not even getting into the fact that weak (i.e. overly broad) inclusion criteria for such lists turns the scope into what is essentially an equivocation, where different entries do not represent the same underlying concept, and where canonical/uncontroversial examples and fringe/controversial examples are treated equally in direct violation of WP:NPOV. TompaDompa (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:LSC, selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. This doesn't meet the first two points. Cult is a vague and subjective term, and this list doesn't help by including super obscure films along with mainstream successes. Like, everyone's heard of or knows about 2001: A Space Odyssey or Schindler's List. This list does not have a clear inclusion category other than "a source called it cult once," and cult itself does not have a clear definition. Also WP:NOTTVTROPES. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LSC says: In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources. Subjective lists are common on Wikipedia and permissible. There are many sources that are lists of cult films. Just need to adjust the criteria. Find the best lists of cult films, and include those that have multiple intersections and/or called a cult film by an academic source and/or etc.. -- GreenC 15:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films participants who have edited in the last five years: Minskist popper (talk · contribs), Agent 86 (talk · contribs), EnsRedShirt (talk · contribs), Erik (talk · contribs), and Eluchil404 (talk · contribs).
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films (2nd nomination) participants: Rose Abrams (talk · contribs), Zxcvbnm (talk · contribs), XOR'easter (talk · contribs), Clarityfiend (talk · contribs), Dream Focus (talk · contribs), and Pikamander2 (talk · contribs).
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films (3rd nomination) participants: Onetwothreeip (talk · contribs), Gonnym (talk · contribs), GreenC (talk · contribs), Barkeep49 (talk · contribs), Betty Logan (talk · contribs), Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs), and Clarityfiend (talk · contribs)
Cunard (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't about what people think are cult films, but what sources have called cult films. Thus it is not subjective nor unquantifiable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is subjective in the sense that what makes a film a cult film is not well defined in the slightest. I've seen multiple sources call very popular films that heavily profited cult films. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said above, the topic of "what people think are cult films" doesn't even remotely pass NLIST. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zxcvbnm and WP:NLIST. The Criterion Collection has a list,[9] as do Time Out,[10] Filmsite,[11] etc. Rolling Stone has a list of cult classics, which includes films,[12] as well as a readers' poll of the best cult movies.[13] There are books of cult films, such as Cult Movies and 100 Cult Films.[14] However, prune really dumb, badly sourced entries. Licence to Kill is not a cult film, and the sole "reference" doesn't say it is. Same with The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and no doubt many others, which I will begin to cull. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST. Wikipedia is listing what has been called in the real world a cult film. And the real world has listed cult films repeatedly. If someone is adding a film that no one in the real world has called a cult film, remove it. If needed, there can be more specific criteria for inclusion, like being on a reliably sourced list or having three individual authorities call it a cult film. But no need to delete a whole list. We would not delete lists of films by genre just because some films are not overtly part of a genre. The problem is with the additions, not the concept of a list. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:Zxcvbnm and others: refine the criteria, edit the list, but don't delete. -- GreenC 15:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment/plea to closer. Please note the pretty blatant influx of keep votes from the canvassing by Cunard above (yeah yeah, maybe not technically canvassing because all previous participants were pinged, but it was still canvassing in spirit). Also please don't be fooled by the numerical vote count that this caused and look at the strength of the arguments, which are heavily on the delete side. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "canvassing" when all participants are notified, not in spirit, not in any way. It's a risky gambit to notify everyone, because you don't know who will respond. Only after the fact, when votes have not gone your way, do you feel the "spirit" of canvassing. What if the votes had gone the other way in your favor? I doubt your would complain. And your wrong about the strength of arguments. WP:LSC is being quoted inaccurately, there is no rule against subjective topics. Nor is AfD a place to deal with cleanup. Have you tried to fix the article with a talk page discussion to more narrowly define the scope? Have you found it impossible to craft the article in a way you find acceptable? Or do you see no acceptable solution? Because lots of other people here see solutions. Basically this entire AfD rests on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- GreenC 17:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cult television shows

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

Vaguely defined, subjective classification. I bet every long enough soap opera has millions of viewers and large fanbase. - Altenmann >talk 13:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTDB. Even the wikipedia "article" (sub-section of a larger article) has a very vague definition of what cult media is. If there was some subjective criteria to determine whether media was cult or not, then this list might be of value. As it stands, it's just a random list of shows that someone once said has cult following, a term that is used indiscriminately in the media.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Cult" is a very broad and somewhat vague term. All it means is that there are some people who really like it! That it retained popularity among some people after its release, or that it may not have a particularly broad fan base. But this is not an intrinsic or distinguishing characteristic. When the inclusion criteria here is that one person used a certain term once to describe a show, that isn't necessarily a relevant commonality or a useful description. This is simply too broad of a concept to justify us maintaining a large context-free list. Cult_following#Television could be expanded with more examples in context, but when most of these articles don't even mention what makes them cult shows, this is simply indiscriminate and not useful to readers. I see so many long-running and popular shows here, this term is so widely used it's lost some of its meaning. Reywas92^Talk 21:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If reliable sources call everything on the list a cult television show, then that's what we go by, not personal opinions. Also it gets coverage. Click the reliable source search at the top of this AFD, and you immediately see https://variety.com/2023/tv/columns/favorite-cult-tv-shows-1235833379/ https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/10-cult-tv-shows-netflix-should-revive-11275690 https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-lists/last-laugh-tracks-the-40-best-cult-tv-comedies-ever-21334/ and more. Dream Focus 01:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are reliable in their coverage of other things, but the linked articles merely call something "cult" without even bothering to define the term. And that's why we're having this discussion, because an encyclopedic article needs to be built on a verifiable definition. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a much clearer inclusion criteria can be agfeed, otherwise it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The breadth of the term and wide contexts in which it may be used by sources make the list uninformative and unhelpful: 24 and Dragon Ball Z have no conceptual relation to one another simply because a reliable source or two described their respective fan communities as having a 'cult following'. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:LSC, selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. This doesn't meet the first two points. As one of the sources says, "exactly what makes a TV show a cult classic can be hard to pin down." The listing of several popular, mainstream shows such as Adventure Time and Family Guy along with obscure ones such as Aeon Flux doesn't help categorize it. See also WP:NOTTVTROPES. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have little to add beyond what the other "delete" voters have said above, and the WP:LSC and WP:INDISCRIMINATE policies have been cited properly. Putting every single thing that somebody once called "cult" into a vague and never-ending list is not encyclopedic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:20, 5 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 Unitarian Universalism#Organizations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Universalist Buddhist Fellowship

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

Has had zero secondary sources since creation just under 20 years ago. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Religion. AusLondonder (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Searches bring up nothing for me. Cortador (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A merge or redirect to Unitarian_Universalism#Organizations should be considered as an WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Unitarian_Universalism#Organizations where its mention can be expanded. I found mentions and directory entries in several books indicating this is a topic of interest but I did not find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ~Kvng (talk) 13:54, 29 March 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 World Affairs Councils of America#Individual councils. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Affairs Council of Dallas/Fort Worth

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

Completely fails WP:ORGCRIT. Not a single secondary source. PROD tag placed by @ArchCardinal: and removed by @Kvng:. Another PROD tag placed by @FactFindersEnigma: but removed as PROD is once-only. Article was created by COI SPA DFW WAC. AusLondonder (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE - WP:NOR, WP:RSSELF self published by the World Affairs Council of Dallas/Fort Worth. — Maile (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to World_Affairs_Councils_of_America#Individual_councils as preferred WP:ATD. Already listed there. No reliably sourced content to merge. Kvngr (talk}☎]] 00:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to World_Affairs_Councils_of_America#Individual_councils: As a valid WP:ATD. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:30, 29 March 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!} 21:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satyakam Mohkamsing

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability in the article, fails WP:GNG InDimensional (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Delhi, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does perform yet I found no reviews, awards, or independent coverage. The website is down. Appears to be a working professional without encyclopedic notability. gidonb (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also found no coverage. He doesn't have an article on any wikis in other languages, either.— Moriwen (talk) 15:48, 29 March 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!} 23:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MicroSIP

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:39, 15 March 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 12:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has limited media coverage, but I'm not sure how much the media would cover something so esoteric. There is robust discussion about it (which indicates wide usage) on platforms like reddit and Youtube.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing a respectable amount of discussion in academic papers (e.g. here)— Moriwen (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's got decent industry adoption, as evidenced by several scholarly articles, as well as a very large number of how-to's. it's kinda esoteric, but still notable. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:22, 29 March 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 16:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Vinheteiro

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

This article about Vinheteiro fails to meet WP:NMUSIC.

Details about Vinheteiro in the article are not cited in accordance with source, which makes it seem to have reach the requirement of WP:NMUSIC e.g. the article stated that Vinheteiro participated in Brazilian programs such as Jornal Nacional (seems to meet criteria 12), while the source 'Jornal Nacional' was about his video of playing of JN's theme song went viral. e.g. the article stated that Vinheteiro performed in China with local musicians (seems to meet criteria 4), yet the source was about his videos' popularity on Chinese online video platform, Bilibili, where he launched online music courses.

If the article is considered as Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability rather than WP:NMUSIC, I doubt its sources are significant enough to meet WP:GNG. --EleniXDD※Talk 07:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Internet, and Brazil. Skynxnex (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The YouTuber has notability, including internationally. [15] [16] Svartner (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. i cannot access the second source provided above, but the first source appears to be an interview and does not contribute to notability. ltb d l (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this source is extremely reliable, one of the top 2 national news outlet in Brazil, with a reach to more than 200 million people. Meets by a long margin criterion 12 of WP:NMUSIC. Contributor892z (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable internationally, and there is comprehensive coverage and sources about this subject in the Portuguese Wikipedia.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:15, 29 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) 18:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NPOSSIBLE applies. Check the Portuguese wiki for better sources.Contributor892z (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Snacks

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. WP:PROMO. Charlie (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Charlie (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage of listing on the stock market, including from major national newspapers, indicate notability. Per WP:LISTED "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports." Examples include Fortune India, Economic Times newspaper, Business Today magazine including analyst comment, Mint business newspaper, another Economic Times article. These are just a handful of examples I found in a few minutes. The article is not irredeemably promotional. AusLondonder (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if there are any reports from independent analysts available yet since the company was just listed recently (48 hours ago). Also, this company being listed alone might not meet the criteria set by Wikipedia for notability. When we examine the references provided, they appear to be same IPO news repeatedly published in multiple Indian media outlets; WP:CHURN, WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Charlie (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Gujarat. Skynxnex (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all coverage is based on press releases around IPO, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGTRIV. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as what seems to be the case here where most of the references are cut-and-paste jobs from the company's IPO prospectus and the rest is mere commentary on their stock market performance with no in-depth "Independent Content" *about the company*. Perhaps in the future some analysts might publish something as suggested above, but I cannot locate anything on this company that meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Highking lacks in depth coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Rosenberg

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

It looks like a resume. The only sources available mention him because he donated/invested a large amount related to research on Alzheimer's disease. I don't think this could satisfy notability and the coverage was not sustained. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the coverage described by nom is in local sources only. No grounds for notability.— Moriwen (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only of local relevance. --Melchior2006 (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRESUME. In 2007, I would have excused this gently, but in 2024, everyone knows that we are not a free web host. Bearian (talk)

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 01:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Iqrar Haroon

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG as well WP:N - delete because its a resume, written by subject himself Special:Contributions/Agha_iqrar_haroon or someone close to them Special:Contributions/Aghaasadharoon.

Also see Dispatch News Desk. Saqib (talk · contribs) 10:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk · contribs) 10:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Journalism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't see why this subject is listed under academics and educators. Does not satisty WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine the listing is because the article asserts that the subject's accomplishments include research and teaching. Searching Google Scholar did find a small number of publications under author:ai-haroon, but nothing that would pass WP:PROF. I think we are going to have to look for notability other than through academic accomplishments; I agree he does not pass PROF. That said, I have not yet formulated an opinion on the subject's overall notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A wonderful author but didn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. The LEDs said he is a political analyst while it doesn't meet WP:NCREATIVE. Another called "him" a journalist—while I was looking per WP:BEFORE to see any coverage that is historic or passes WP:SIGCOV but to no avail, failing WP:NJOURNALIST. The article about a person just a run of the mill case. The sources doesn't say WP:SIGCOV and made-up like; the wholly sounds WP:UPE, where I can find much PROMO! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the nominator's reason here at the first AFD, it can be possibly recreation of deleted material though was a weak delete. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 12:43, 3 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 COPIM. which is the page title for the article about Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Book Collective

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

The page may not meet Wikipedia's notability; perhaps - redirect to Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs BoraVoro (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Museums and libraries, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @BoraVoro for your suggestion to delete this page. Maybe to share some details around why I thought it might be good to have a separate page on the Open Book Collective - this Open Access platform and community has been developed out of the Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs project, but as the COPIM project has ended and the Open Book Collective itself has matured and now is its own legal entity, I thought it might make more sense to have a separate entry for that initiative. I agree that the current state of the page is still rudimentary, but my hope is that this will be soo growing to include more detailed information around key collaborations, etc. in the space of non-profit OA book publishing, so would be grateful if this could be given space here on Wikipedia going forward. Thanks so much for your consideration, and all best, Flavoursofopen (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you @Flavoursofopen for your passion and work. I'm not entirely in favor of deletion at this point. I am open to changing or withdrawing my vote. BoraVoro (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added a stub tag to the page. Looking over the coverage of the Open Book Collective on the web, it appears notable enough but the article is just starting and does need work. In this case we should follow Wikipedia's policy of improving an article rather than deleting it.WP:EDITING Myotus (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, fails WP:NGO. I cannot find any sourcing that is fully independent of the organizaiton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach61 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The OBC is a full UK-registered Charity, see https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/5219053 Flavoursofopen (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flavoursofopen That does not prove notability Mach61 04:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, apologies, I misunderstood - there are indeed more independent sources, e.g.
https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2023/11/open-book-collective-collective-path-toward-an-open-and-sustainable-monograph-future/

https://subscriptionsmanager.jisc.ac.uk/catalogue/2840

Flavoursofopen (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flavoursofopen The University of California webpage was written by a Chair for the OBC, so it isn't independent. Webpage #2 is literally selling a subscription to the OBC. Mach61 16:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mach61, thanks for this - and apologies again, but your points for me quickly raise another, more substantial issue - namely what is actually meant by "independence" here ... i.e. how far removed from an institution do you have to be to count as "independent"?

Would e.g. this source [1](https://open-access.network/services/news/artikel/finanzielle-unterstuetzung-fuer-open-access-buecher) count as "independent"? Would official statements of the OBC's international funders or evolving network of universities, infrastructures, etc - all of thems independent, well-recognised entities - suffice, would research articles such as [2](https://journal.dbs.ie/index.php/dbs/article/view/119/65), mentioning the OBC? Like, what counts as enough?

As an aside, for me it's quite frustrating that a not-for-profit charity such as the Open Book Collective that is clearly working to do the same for OA books as Wikipedia does for encyclopedic knowledge - to remove barriers to access to knowledge overall - and with similar open mission & values is being sidelined by such artifically-erected barriers ... and I see the argument for due process etc. but again, when is enough? Flavoursofopen (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A prior "no consensus" closure was vacated per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 28. This can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. I could not find anything beyond the resources cited here which are authored by persons from the project's institutions (well, other than the UK gov entry and that is a factual register including all NGOs). These sources could be included to support facts, but they do not support notability. Lamona (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 18:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Håvar Bauck

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

Bio appears promotional, lacks verification from reputable sources, and does not meet the General Notability Guidelines BoraVoro (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Kenya, and Norway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - There seems to be more than enough references that are reliable and the notability criteria is met with significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of each other to keep a posting about Håvar Bauck .I think that the page certainly is within the realm of the spirit of Wikipedia. Felixgfive (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- So this user claims a COI, but doesn't say with who, has just started their account, and has simply copied the notability language. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject easily passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Article is clearly written in WP:NPOV. He is also a recognized voice of the travel industry in Kenya. Does the nominator consider major sources like Nation Media, Capital Business or BusinessDay (WP:NGRS) not reliable because they are African? ANairobian (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Techcrunch is an obviously reputable and reliable source. Skift and Phocuswire (by Northstar Travel Group) are reliable international travel publications. Daily Nation and Business Day are two of the most reputable newspapers in Kenya and Nigeria respectively. Capital Business is also widely recognized as a reliable Kenyan business news source. Ventureburn (by Memeburn) is a major Pan-African entrepreneurship news source. 197.254.70.206 (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to concerns of canvassing. One account was registered after this AfD had begun, the other account is also only about two weeks old, and the third is an IP editor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody asked me to write or vote here. I'm a new editor, but I've been observing and learning for a while. I came across the AfD in WP:KE and recognized the name because I've read about him, read several of his articles, and also seen him speaking at conferences. Definitely notable in my opinion. I personally don't think the article reads like an advertisement, but since at least two editors disagree, I took the liberty to make some small edits, toning down the language a bit and moving some supporting references immediately next to the parts about "first in Africa". Hope that does it!ANairobian (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment appears to have been WP:REFBOMBED with churnalism, press releases, self-published works and interviews. Does not appear to have any reliable sourcing. Can those seeking to keep this provide two reliable sources? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm expecting that this gets relisted again to be honest. I have similar concerns to you. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of these sources used are in reputable publications, which should be fairly easy to verify, e.g several news stories in Finansavisen, a leading Norwegian business daily (Article 1, Article 2); Techcrunch (Article); Ventureburn (Article 1, Article 2); Capital Business (Article); Business Day (Article); Phocuswire (Article); The Exchange (Article 1, Article 2) 185.128.9.106 (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 is fine and a RS, the rest are iffy. I'm not sure we're at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too many promo sources, hardly any in RS. A Gsearch brings up the usual social media, venture funding PR items, not much in Gnews. I can't find enough SIGCOV that isn't PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep few articles found notable but more to the company and as founder I find this one notable Norway article which is pretty much reliable, other 2 that discusses the founders can be generally accepted as secondary source, since company that he’s founded and of CEO has article over years. HarshalDhotre06 (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make a policy based argument. It doesn't matter whether the company has an article or not, as notability is not inherited. WP:NINI Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for NINI I didn’t know about it yet. I’mm gonna make my comment in an hour based on NINI. HarshalDhotre06 (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:NINI is an important policy, WP:AUTHOR and WP:ENT also state that artists and authors may derive notability from notable works. Wikipedia lacks elaborate notability policies for entrepreneurship, but it would make sense that people who have built notable companies (being a founder is much more than a mere association with a business) should derive some notability from their work. 196.207.188.98 (talk) 12:13, 27 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) 05:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The editor did an amazing job writing the article with respect to neutrality, but one of the sources in particular concerns. This one [17]. Pretty strange! For a journalistic sit down interview, I would have expected a question and answer, with the questions on the article like this [18]. However, the article seems like it was written by the subject himself and handed to the publisher for printing. The article was evidently not written by the journalist profiled (hence the subject's use of single person throughout), and no sign of the journalist's input other than the brief intro.Tamsier (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Engineering Company

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

Notability has not been adequately demonstrated BoraVoro (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Technology, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Three of the sources look okay - why aren't they adequate? Garuda3 (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. References for companies must meet the criteria of WP:ORGCRIT and nothing here does. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The references meet the criteria and prove credability of this company. Mlaviolette (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Which references meet our notability criteria though? HighKing⁺⁺ 23:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the sourcing in the article is lacking, mostly industry publications. While there's no specific bar on earned media being used for WP:NORG notability these are quite narrowcast and not indicative of independent reporting. The Wash U article is an outlier -extensive, independent but narrowly focused on a COVID/PPE issue. If other reliable in-depth coverage surfaces I'd be willing to reconsider.
@BoraVoro did you do WP:BEFORE searches? There is quite a bit of independent discussion of the company in connection with Hunter Engineering Co v Syncrude Canada Ltd but I don't see that blossomed into a broader article about the company. It would have been helpful if you had acknowledged the existence of such sources and explained why they didn't support notability.
@Mlaviolette is a single purpose account focusing on this company and its chairman Stephen F. Brauer. A query about conflict of interest is unanswered at the talk page for nearly 5 years, but this edit admits to working for the company. Oblivy (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Banas (1300)

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

No reliable sources or historians refer to the military conflict as the "Battle of Banas," indicating that the title is an invented name. We do not invent names for military conflicts such as "Battle of X" or "Siege of X" unless they are mentioned in reliable sources WP:RS. As a result, the article fails to meet naming criteria.

Moreover, the military conflict is part of Alauddin Khalji's invasion of Chittorgarh and could potentially be merged with the Siege of Chittorgarh (1303) as a prelude. The conflict appears to be more of a skirmish than a full-fledged battle and is only briefly mentioned in scattered lines within sources, primarily as part of the Siege of Chittorgarh. Consequently, the article fails to meet the criteria of Wikipedia's general notability WP:GNG and naming standards.Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado the battle isn't a part of siege of chittorgarh 1303. Allauddin sent the forces to defeat Hammiradeva , and the battle took place at Banas

Khilji sultans in Rajasthan

Thus Ulugh Khan marched with an army of 80,000 to plunder and lay waste the Chthamana country. When the armies, of Islam reached the river 'Varnansa' (Banas), they found it difficult to march through the pass leading to Hammira's territory. Ulugh Khan, therefore, encamped therefor some days and burnt and destroyed the villages of its neighbhbourhood. When the misdeeds of the Muslim army were brought to Hammira, was then engaged in religious rites, for he has not yet completed this 'Muniverata.'2 That Hammira at the moment was busy in the performance of some religious rites has also been stated in the Surjana Charita. So Hammira could not personally take the field and instead sent two of his generals, Bhimasimha and Dharmasiraha, to drive away the invaders. They gained a decisive victory over the Muslim hosateBanas a and large number of the Muslim soldiers were killed inction Narook (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there is no mention of "Battle of Banas". We can't keep it. Thanks. Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm inclined to say delete since it seems to fail notability guidelines. But, if it can be merged with the wider war/effort/offensive that it was a part of, that would be better. If not, delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The information about the battle comes from the Hammira Mahakavya, whose historical reliability is debatable. The salvageable content is already part of Alauddin Khalji's conquest of Ranthambore#Death of Bhimasimha. utcursch | talk 14:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This source used for this battle seems unreliable if the creator could provide reliable sources this battle could be kept

WhiteReaperPM (talk) 06:15, 30 March 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 battles in Rajasthan#16th Century as a viable ATD since there was little input since all the socks were blocked and there's no sense of further coming Star Mississippi 14:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Ontala (1599)

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

Reasons are listed below:

The article title, "Siege of Ontala (1599)," appears to be fabricated. There are no reliable sources mentioning either "Siege of Ontala (1599) [19]" or simply "Siege of Ontala [20]" that occurred in 1599. This name seems to be invented, as no historian refers to the military conflict by this name .
Among all the sources cited in the article, with the exception of "Encyclopaedia Indica: Mughals and Rajputs," all other sources fall under either WP:RAJ, WP:AGEMATTERS, or WP:V. The article lacks coverage in enough reliable secondary sources, thus failing to meet the notability criteria WP:GNG. The information can be easily merged to any of the parent articles. Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Singh besieged the fort of Ontala from Mughals in 1599. [1]1st

siege at Ontala , in Rajasthan , in Jahangier's time an elephant refused to push at a spiked gate , when a Rajpoot Chief placed his body between it and the gate

source 2:

2nd

Page number 15, Siege of ontala is mentioned

Source 3:

3rd

The siege of the frontier fortress of Ontala, which is about thirty kilometres east of Oodipoor, is famous in the annals of Rajasthan

It's a historical battle lol Narook (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mewar & the Mughal Emperors (1526-1707 A.D.)

Page 125- Kayum Khan, the Mughal general of Ontala was killed while resisting the Rajput attack and the fort of Ontala fell in the hands of Amar Singh's men. Narook (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado aren't these sources enough? Narook (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado the article should not be deleted

Amar Singh besieged the fort of Ontala from Mughals in 1599. [1]1st

siege at Ontala , in Rajasthan , in Jahangier's time an elephant refused to push at a spiked gate , when a Rajpoot Chief placed his body between it and the gate

source 2:

2nd

Page number 15, Siege of ontala is mentioned

Source 3:

3rd

The siege of the frontier fortress of Ontala, which is about thirty kilometres east of Oodipoor, is famous in the annals of Rajasthan

Source 4 : Mewar & the Mughal Emperors (1526-1707 A.D.)

Page 125- Kayum Khan, the Mughal general of Ontala was killed while resisting the Rajput attack and the fort of Ontala fell in the hands of Amar Singh's men

Narook (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ontala is also pronounced as Untala

The annual of the east- page 136

siege of Untala, who, descending calmly from his elephant, placed his body on the spikes of the high portal, to serve as a cushion for the beast to push against...

Calcutta Review Volumes 104-105 page 8

Volumes 104-105

Rana Amara Sing , who recovered Chitor after its last capture by Akbar , and the occasion was the attack on the fortress of Untala , whose ruins still Stand between Chittor and udaipur Narook (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are unreliable and not verifiable. The deletion discussion is not a place to make questions against me. If you could do WP:HEY. Go for it. But as long as there is no reliable sources calling it "Siege of Ontala", we can't keep this on mainspace. It's all about naming an event. Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado Unreliable?? Seriously? Do you think historians who've written these books are fools? Narook (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RAJ, WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:V, and WP:RS. Not evert historian is reliable. And we are definitely not making articles for each and every military conflicts here. See WP:Guide to Deletion and please do not fill the page with unnecessary messages. Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado it was a major decisive victory for the kingdom of Mewar, stop Mughal POV pushing Narook (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep-~~ the article shouldn't be deleted see WP:RSes. We have multiple sources about siege of ontala 1599 Narook (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado before adding articles for deletion, please discuss about the article in the talk section Narook (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Narook, please stop WP:BLUDGEONING the AfD. Out of the 11 comments on this AfD, 9 of those are yours. Calm down and let the process happen. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources appear to refer to the event as 'The Siege of Ontala' so we cannot have a page called The Siege of Ontala. Tennisist123 (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, there is the wild possibility of moving the article to a different page title that is more appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the context pass WP:GNG, we can keep by moving. Else, there is no other option. Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz the Siege of ontala is also called as Siege of Untala 1 moving the page from Siege of Ontala to Siege of Untala would be a better idea Narook (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~•Keep~~- @Tennisist123 @Liz @Spiderone I've quoted the sources mentioning Siege of Ontala below

Encyclopaedia Indica: Mughals and Rajputs (1999) Page 72: Siege of Ontala , the siege of which is famous for one of the most extraordinary exhibitions of Rajput courage recorded in the annals of Rajasthan . The right to lead the herole ( vanguard ) , which had for generations belonged to the Chondawats.

Glimpses of Old Bombay and Western India, with Other Papers page 315

siege at Ontala , in Rajasthan , in Jehangier's time an elephant refused to push at a spiked gate , when a Rajpoot Chief placed his body between it and the gate ,

Maharaj Shakti Singh and the Shaktawats of Boheda (2004)

During the Siege of Untala and Sacrifice of Ballu The right to lead in battle was regarded as a sign of the greatest honour among the Rajputs . This honour was traditionally enjoyed by the Chundawats in Mewar . During the reign of Maharana Amar Singh Narook (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing these, @Narook

From my perspective, 1 and 2 are not admissible. 1. We should not be using encyclopedias as proof of notability. 2. Does not describe a proper noun, it describes that a siege occured at this place. The existence of a siege is not what is under discussion but whether the acton was commonly referred to as The Siege of Ontala.

3. is great and supportive of keeping the page. However, I still do not think it is sufficient alone. Tennisist123 (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I've struck the duplicate keep votes from a sock, there has not yet been enough participation (votes) to determine a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned at List of battles in Rajasthan, does it make sense to redirect it there as an alternative to deletion? Typically I would expect this kind of topic to be discussed in a broader history article about the wider conflict, or in the article on the place/fort itself. But it doesn't look like we have an article for the fortress? -- asilvering (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamini Aiyar

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable tag since 2012, most references are WP:PSTS or WP:SPS. May be in the news recently due to stepping down as CEO, but otherwise not notable. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Organizations, Delhi, and United Kingdom. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's the head of Centre for Policy Research; she seems to qualify under WP:NPROF.— Moriwen (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No longer the head. Plus WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions. I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 16:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That she is no longer the head doesn't subtract any notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions. I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 15:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Google News search whose timeframe ends before her recent resignation: [21]. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of refs for this. Desertarun (talk) 15:43, 19 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. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bandanwara

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

None of the reliable sources WP:RS refer to the military conflict as the "Battle of Bandanwara," nor do any historians recognize it by that name. The title is a fabricated one, which contradicts the criteria for creating an article about a military conflict. The article does not meet the notability WP:GNG, as the sources merely mention it as a military conflict, without dedicating even a single page completely to it. Moreover, there is no record of a battle called the "Battle of Bandanwara" in the specified year mentioned in the article. Imperial ^[AFCND] 08:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, and suggest withdrawal. The nomination seems flawed, and fails perhaps both WP:SK #1 and #3. The OP's issue seems mainly with the name, which can be addressed elsewwhere From the History of Mewar, p.324:

On receiving intelligence of his march, the Maharana decided to intercept him on the border of Mewar. For this purpose he despatched a large army headed by the Chiefs, Chauhan Devabhan (Kothariya), Rathor Suratsingh, Sanga (Devagarh), Dodiya Hathisingh, Gangadas (Bansi), Jhala Sajja (Delawara), Rathor Jaisingh (Badnor), Samantsingh (Bambhora) etc, In an engagement held at Bandhanwara Ranabaz Khan together with his chiefs were slain and the Maharana succeeded to retain the paraganas in his possession

. These events are dated to February/March I711. So at least one historian mentions it by this name (give or take an 'h'!) and considers the date correct. Suggesting a military engagement isn't a battle of some kind seems a bit of a stretch. And frankly, suggesting that this is fabricated could be interpreted as an aspersion, as it suggests a deliberate hoax. Which is clearly not the case.

Other sources also discuss the battle in the context of military and political history (e.g. The Grenadiers, a Tradition of Valour, Mewar and the Maratha Relations, 1735-1818 A.D., Pratap, the Patriot: With a Concise History of Mewar), and even culturally (e.g. Paintings from Rajasthan in the National Gallery of Victoria etc). I'm afraid this nomination makes some curious claims, claims which are directly contradicted by reliable sources. ——Serial Number 54129 14:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Serial Number 54129. Could you please provide the source that explicitly mentions the name "Battle of Bandanwara"? It's important to note that these are only Google snippet notes, which are often available even for minor skirmishes. The battle must be thoroughly described in reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. If the event meets the GNG as mentioned above, we could consider renaming the article or merging it with one of the parent articles. If you could develop the article so that we can submit it for review through WP:HEY, and if it meets the GNG, we can move it to the appropriate title. The current status of the article does not meet the standard requirements. Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ImperialAficionado, thank you; I have been here a while now, so I flatter myself. I have some small understanding of the deletion process. Firstly, the name. If you have an issue with the article title, that does not mean it is a hoax or that it must be deleted. Spellings and linguistic cultures and traditions change over time, and the only difference I can see is that occasionally, sources insert an 'h' or possibly an 'n'. Neither of those is egregious enough to claim that, therefore, it does not exist. If you think the title needs adjusting, start a talk page discussion, go to Requested Moves or even be bold and move it yourself; redirects are cheap, especially redirects from misspellings. Again, if you wish to dispute that a battle was really a skirmish, fine: but again, that is merely a content dispute and can be resolved through our usual consensus-building processes. As for Google snippets, that depends on where you are in the world and what Google will let you see. It varies with jurisdiction, so what you might see, I might not, and vice versa. Apart from demanding other work to improve it per HEY, etc., perhaps address the actual purpose of AfD, which is to demonstrate a lack of notability; your nomination fails to do so convincingly. Indeed, it is procedurally flawed: titles and minor errors are not grounds for deletion. A thorough reading of WP:BEFORE explains what is expected of a nominator. Fundamentally: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. ——Serial Number 54129 14:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would expect a "speedy keep and suggest withdrawal" response to have extremely good sourcing, but I'm not seeing that here. Is that quote supposed to be significant coverage? It's two sentences! So, that doesn't help us show notability. What about the others? I don't see any sigcov in that snippet from The Grenadiers, and what I do see suggests that all we'll get from that is the place name and a year. I could go pull it from the library and check it, but it's only the one hit, so that doesn't seem promising. Likewise, I could go order up Mewar and the Maratha Relations, but the snippet I can see on google books doesn't fill me with optimism; I tried searching from another angle and it appears to be about a sentence there also. What I can see of Pratap, the Patriot suggests the result is a false positive, since it's talking about Bhim Singh of Mewar. I get nothing from a journal search of my library, effectively nothing from google scholar, and this sole result from JSTOR (someone less blind than I am will have to find the references to "Battle of Bandanwara" on pp 4 and 5). -- asilvering (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From the sources cited here, Pratap, the Patriot is not a false positive. It is not referring to Bhim Singh of Mewar, but referring to Bhim Singh (Bhimsi) Kothari of Begun, who took part in this battle. Har Bilas Sarda had written about the same Bhim Singh Kothari [here] who took part in this battle. I can add these sources as well on the page. History quester (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, thanks for the clarification. I'll go check on Pratap, the Patriot at the library, then, to see if there's significant coverage there. Regarding the source you found, the closest it comes to naming a battle is The next morning, when the two armies met on the banks of the Khari river. It doesn't even seem to give a date, beyond the regnal years of Maharana Sangram Singh II. It looks like this is indeed the same battle, going by the details in the wikipedia article, so I think we have one good source now, which isn't enough for a WP:GNG pass yet, and additionally raises concerns about the title of the article. I'm not seeing "Bandanwara" anywhere anywhere in this source you've found. Did I just miss it? -- asilvering (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not the case as initially raised that there is no record of this battle, or it is not referred by this name. This request doesn't qualify for WP:AFD. There are more than one source which have mentioned this battle or have references to it. There are sources already added on the main page, listing down other sources here, which I am adding to the main page.
RV Somani’s book History of Mewar.
From the sources provided by Serial Number 54129,this battle is mentioned in the below sources.
Pratap, the patriot

Har Bilas Sarda mentioned the same events of Pratap, the patriot in his book Speeches And Writings Har Bilas Sarda , giving details about Kothari Bhim Singh, who was killed in this battle.

The Grenadiers , a Tradition of Valour mentions the battle of Bandanwara (1711) on the state colours of Mewar Bhupal Infantry, which was later merged into Indian Army.

K.S. Gupta, Mewar and the Maratha Relations

Paintings from Rajasthan in the National Gallery of Victoria
History quester (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:09, 20 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liechtenstein national badminton team

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

No evidence of notability, one local article in Liechtenstein, otherwise either passing mentions (e.g. the Faroese articles just state that their team beat Liechtenstein, it doesn't give any actual attention to the Liechtenstein team), databases, or non-independent sources (organizers and the like). Fram (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Badminton, and Liechtenstein. Fram (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Relevant as national badminton team, at least same notability as the mentioned teams under participants in Football at the 2023 Island Games. National badminton championships are held in Liechtenstein since 1986, Badminton Europe member since 1993. Team mentions [22], [23], [24], [25]. --Florentyna (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability can be assumed as the national team. Sourcing is poor, but does not warrant deletion. I can work on addressing more odious elements in the coming days.TheBritinator (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's questionable whether "national team notability can be assumed" in every existing sport. It depends on the sport, and may also depend on the country (if the sport in question receives coverage there). Florentyna partially argues with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and not all of the coverage is significant or independent. Geschichte (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NTEAM is specifically clear that no sports team has "assumed notability": "This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline." None of the sources identified above by Florentyna are secondary. Without evidence of notability this fails WP:GNG. I have had a brief look for sources but have not located significant secondary source coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No improvements in article since its nomination. Can we see an evaluation of sources brough to this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per NTEAM and AusLondoner Wolfson5 (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NTEAM. Notability must not be assumed. Evidence of notability for this specific team is not clear or reliably sourced. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly weak merge into Liechtenstein § Sports, adding any above-decent sources while we're at it. (The sport we're discussing here reminds me of an English-dubbed Shimajiro episode I came across months back--but that's besides the point here. [Suffice to say I'm one of this anime's few fans in the West.]) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:59, 20 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. Other than the nominator, none of the participants are calling for deletion. Views are split between Keep and Merge, although more than one merge target has been proposed. The decision of what, if any, to merge, and to where, is an editorial one, and discussion can continue on the article's Talk page. This decision doesn't require an AfD to adjudicate it. Owen× ☎ 23:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event

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

Just because this game had a specific branding of "75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event", that doesn't make it notable enough for a separate article. There doesn't look to be WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this match, and the match itself has just WP:ROUTINE coverage. All of the "Background" section is not directly relevant to the match and could be covered in separate articles about the teams' cricketing histories, and the match details are already covered in Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, India, and Australia. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but not necessarily strongly - I guess you could make the argument this would be better merged, but there was a lot of coverage of the political portion of the event. I am finding some sustained coverage, especially because Albanese was invited back for the final. SportingFlyer T·C 09:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The match did recieve significant coverage in March 2023 in India. The series article you mentioned does not have much as compared to the content of this article. Moreover, if you do see, that series article itself is in an ongoing split discussion. Similar events like Namaste Trump have pages; and this was followed by an entire match.

Pharaoh496 (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23; unlike Namaste Trump or Howdy Modi or the bajillion other gimmicky diplomatic events, this one isn't independently notable. Coverage is routine and retrospective coverage is basically non-existent. AryKun (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That article is already in an existing WP:SPLIT discussion, I dont deem it appropriate for the contents of this article to be merged as a singular match when they are contemplating seperating entire tours.
- It did recieve decent coverage as well as some political fallout. As stated above, I support keeping
Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That split discussion has had no comments for a year and is not caused by the article being too long, so isn't relevant to whether this article should be merged into it or not. There's also many choices for merge targets, including articles about Australia-India cricket and relations. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that merge discussion hasnt had comments for a year, plumping this content there will make it worse.

As stated by @SportingFlyer, and me; there was political coveage, I have tried to add a bit more. It was more than a cricket match, and I have included all the valid information on the trip.

Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That split discussion centers on whether it was one or two distinct tours. If it gets split, this can be merged to whichever tour the Test series was part of. AryKun (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still does not mean this article cant exist, per my existing points Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302 I beg to differ on your original point. The event getting unique branding preparations and then the event actually getting carried out constitute an article here. By that logic, I mighth have seen half a dozen good articles with less relevance than this; but thats the point - its all relevant, valid and cited information. It has failed GAN's but the reasons were for the article to improve further (which it has), and not actually take it down. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23 as this event was about diplomatic relations between two cricket playing countries when Australian team was in India 2023 for test matches against India. This event is not notable for a separate page with such title but fits best on page Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23 where a segment can be created about this celebration. RangersRus (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page is about a test series. Having so much information about a single test is unconventional and inconvenient, not to mention unprecedented for a conventional wikipedia test series page.

That particular page in question is already cluttered as it is. Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above; it doesn't help that the article is in extremely poor condition—essentially a badly-written, promotional political puff piece, which is unacceptable. There are only a couple of reliable sources which provide SIGCOV of the events, and they all fall under WP:ROUTINE. Every other non-sporting citation does not contribute to notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain this? How exactly is it a promotional junk piece? Each source is cited to the best citation available, and contains all the information about the event and all the unique things taking place Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"all of the unique things taking place" can you really not hear yourself? Now find sources which show notability: read what WP:GNG says, and explain why the sources fulfil those criteria. Remember, you are arguing that the "75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event" is notable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEONING

Understanding the reason to merge - Topic relevant for standalone article

I would like to thank editors @AirshipJungleman29@RangersRus@AryKun@Joseph2302 for commenting here. I would like to raise some points here.

This was not just a cricket match: It was a 75-year anniversary celebration of cricket relations between the two countries + of international bilateral relations + of the success of an educational agreement. All of that information is included. It would be unfair to deem it as just a cricket match article.
Notwithstanding the above fact: The description of the entire match has also been included as it was at the start of the match which was played. So has the toss coin, the jersey exchange and the cap handing.
This event did have significant political coverage in India and Indian media; as well as some political fallout, and I as the editor of this page have done my best to add citations and backgrounds.
As stated before, the series article already has the required information of ten matches - it will be unconventional and inconvenient, not to mention unprecedented for a conventional wikipedia test series page to contain detailed information of this event. On top of it, even though it was a year ago, its undergoing a split discussion (with majority voting in favour), furthering the argument of not plumping this content onto that page.
This page has failed a GAN not for lack of nobility, but simply lack of citations which has then since been changed as much as possible, and I as, one of the principal editors currently, will constantly keep looking to improve the article and take suggestions even after the conclusion of this discussion.

Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion Pharaoh496; your behaviour is becoming disruptive and your attitude towards this page is beginning to verge on WP:OWN. I have hatted the above monologue which adds absolutely nothing new to the discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if merged, would Australia–India relations#Cricket relations be a sensible/better target? It's already mentioned there, and so a few more sentences there would suffice. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that might be a good alternative target. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23: the event itself is not notable enough to have a separate wiki page. WP:1E ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was getting ready to close this with a Merge to Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23 until I saw on that article that there is a recommendation that this article should be split into more than one article. So, I'm not sure that it's the ideal Merge target article and wanted to get a second opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the comment in the relist, this is a valid WP:SPLIT. SportingFlyer T·C 09:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The split discussion is for a completely different issue- whether it was 2 separate series or not. And the split discussion is stale, so shouldn't impact this possible merge. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, SportingFlyer needs to reread Liz's comment. Regardless, I fail to see why a split discussion would mean that the article is not the right target. If it is split, then the merged information will go to the Australian cricket team in India in 2023 article, which will incorporate most of the current page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~ AirshipJungleman29, well, I just wanted to bring this fact to this discussion in case it made any difference to participating editors' opinion. Apparently, it doesn't. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anything wrong with this page as it stands, and the page we want to merge to is too large. It's pretty simple. SportingFlyer T·C 15:32, 1 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!} 08:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ikoku

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

I am doubtful of passing GNG. Per Before gave articles linking only to her campaign like this one although have no results nor passes WP:NPOL. SIGCOV is also a problem and judging from the media aspect, the subject fails ANYBIO. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, England, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:30, 23 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!} 06:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:47, 29 March 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!} 08:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kehinde Ipaye

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

I can't find much SIGCOV to establish notability. Almost all the sources if not all were about his company which are too not notable per WP: ORG. No way yet for meeting GNG. Fails business people guideline for notability. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 14:51, 22 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!} 06:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and per nominator. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:49, 29 March 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!} 21:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Thread

AfDs for this article:

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

Surprisingly poor sourced, not notable company. WP THREE? Rodgers V (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked the nominator for spamming, but I believe this nomination should be considered on its merits. MER-C 14:50, 24 March 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!} 06:51, 29 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) 06:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The current sources are the company's own about page, a local news site and a press release. I've looked and have not found anything better. Does not meet and is unlikely to meet WP:CORP. Jtrrs0 (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Like I stated, Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of notability. Kinopiko ^talk 10:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NCORP as coverage is limited to local announcements of the store opening and closing locations at malls. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:02, 12 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!} 03:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Graue

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

I wasn't able to find sources demonstrating notability. An alternative to deletion is a redirect to List of Lost characters. toweli (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and Hawaii. toweli (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:03, 22 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!} 06:41, 29 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) 06:26, 5 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 06:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sad pop

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

Not a real genre. The sources are actually discussing sad pop songs, not "Sad pop" as a genre. A cursory search online supports this, with all articles simply discussing music that is sad. Anarchyte (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, and Popular culture. Anarchyte (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mach61 07:57, 29 March 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!} 22:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aspose.Words

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

Incompliance with WP:N, WP:NSOFT, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOT as well as lack of purpose, and advertising. Ztimes3 (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft deletion.Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT as it lacks any secondary, significant coverage. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It Note :Good article, but it has some errors،GQO (talk) 8:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. As stated, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should probably have been blown to bits for WP:BROCHURE alone even if there were sources, but sources there aren't. Barely any mentions outside their own website at all, and those mentions it does have are not anywhere near close to meeting WP:NPRODUCT. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. As an alternative to deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism and authority

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

This is an essay not an encyclopedia article. None of the sources are about this topic, with each being used to back up a string of arguments used to make this article entirely from wp:or and wp:synth

If any books ABOUT Mormonism and authority come out, such an article should exist then. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. There should be an article on this, but all the content here is SYNTH from primary sourcing or misuse of reliable second sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT: mildly interesting essay as it stands, but not what Wikipedia's for. AryKun (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify. The article as it now stands is undeniably an essay that needs to be completely rewritten. I recently acquired several excellent sources on this exact topic, and I will be working on this article as I can in order to improve it, but I do request that is not deleted until such changes are taken into consideration. As the OP hinted at regarding books, these include two books which I have added to the article. Rollidan (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment per others, I do not object to draftifying or WP:TNT and starting over. Rollidan (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Would a resolution be to move this article to Draft space where it can be improved over time?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I'm inclined to support deletion because the article reads more like an essay, which doesn't fit within WP guidelines as outlined in WP:NOTESSAY. However, Rollidan has pointed out that there may still be a chance to improve the article. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify, there may be a notable topic under there but TNT would likely be needed to find it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:G5. Creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, but there's also a rough consensus here to delete and nobody has advanced an argument for retaining this article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Moeis

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

The first sentence in the lead section of the article explicitly states that the individual is "known as the husband of actress Sandra Dewi", suggesting his notability is primarily derived from his relationship with a well-known figure. However, according to WP:INVALIDBIO, merely being associated with a notable person, such as a spouse, does not warrant a standalone article.

Additionally, although the individual later becomes an alleged suspect in a corruption case, WP:PERPETRATOR specifies that the crime must be unusual or noteworthy to merit a standalone article. Furthermore, WP:BLPCRIME cautions against including material that suggests an individual has committed or is accused of a crime, unless there is a secured conviction. In this case, it's important to note that he is still a suspect and has not been convicted yet. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and really no substantial coverage of the subject generally. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For all the reasons stated above. 「HypeBoy」^TALK 06:13, 31 March 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 Kota Kinabalu#shopping. where newly identified sourcing can be added to the existing mention. Consensus appears that sourcing isn't sufficient for a standalone. Star Mississippi 14:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karamunsing Complex

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

Marked for notability concerns 11 months ago. A search for sources only found routine coverage rather than indepth coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Malaysia. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kota Kinabalu#shopping where the shopping centre is already mentioned if notability for a separate article cannot be established. Rupples (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:56, 29 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) 06:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the additional sources. 2 of them appear to be blog like websites. [26] and [27] LibStar (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - a quick news search brings up several articles where the centre is mentioned in passing, or it is the main focus but the article is fairly short. So although significant coverage isn't immediately demonstrable, I'm reasonably confident that such coverage is likely to exist (e.g. in newspapers at the time of the mall opening etc). Waggers TALK 11:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSTBESOURCES. You must specify the sources you claim that exist. LibStar (talk) 11:27, 12 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!} 08:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Iyobo

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

Fails GNG and no SIGCOV. Being a head of a church regards a notable one per WP:CLERGY and verifiable by multiple reliable sources. BEFORE found nothing even with different change of related name on google news per WP: BISHOP. It is noteworthy to say: it's neither written as an Encyclopedic material nor a notable reference since it lacks context also to identify WP:N All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and Nigeria. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also did not pass WP: NAUTHOR and WP: JOURNALIST. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 04:58, 22 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!} 04:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WODR-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Wisconsin. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another very short-lived DTV America/HC2/Innovate station whose paper existence didn't even make it a decade (and its operational history was even more razor-thin). This one was apparently so under-the-radar that the bulk nomination of many HC2 station articles did not include this station. There is no way any significant coverage is on — or anywhere near — the table here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I expanded the article, but I struggled to find anything about this station because like Edge Spectrum, these mid-market stations never stay still and pretty much stay on the air or toll until they get to the market's tower site, and if they can't they just give up; I didn't even know until now that its final tower site was not even in market range of Wausau and instead covered Green Bay (and not well), like some of DTVAHC2's other 'voyager' translators (e.g. the Springfield, Illinois station somehow in St. Louis); since it didn't get to Scray Hill, DTV gave up and turned in the license; if even I miss this station's demise in my own backyard (I regularly scan stations and never caught this one), you know nobody ever knew about it outside an engineer-for-hire. Nate • (chatter) 03:31, 30 March 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!} 23:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kooi-Ying Mah

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

Only 2 articles link to this. Nothing in gnews or Australian database trove. 2 small mentions in google books. Fails WP:ARCHITECT. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Architecture, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not ready to vote Keep or delete but want to comment that it is irrelevant if a modern day Australian is not in Trove. Trove is not the only place to look especially if the person is fairly young. Trove newspapers and magazines are generally "digitised up to 1954, with select newspapers and gazettes contributed up to present day (rights and funding permitting)." As an example, a better place to look would be in recent Australian architectural journals through EBSCO or JSTOR.LPascal (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She gets no hits in Jstor. LibStar (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked JSTOR and from the list I could find, it does not index Australian architectural journals (except for Australian landscape architecture) and the architectural journals it does index are usually UK or US and limited to pre 2020). So I'm just pointing out that when you search for a younger, living Australian in databases to see if they have been written about, you have to understand that some databases mostly include non-Australian reference sources and may be limited in their date coverage, so that you can't assume that a person is non-notable because they don't appear in certain databases of reference sources. If you can find a better list of journals on JSTOR, I'd welcome receiving the link because it's difficult to find.LPascal (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like many AFDs these days, we need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 29 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) 06:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still needs more participation. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing popped up on TWL or google. Mach61 16:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. No new sources or arguments against the nomination were presented. Svartner (talk) 05:13, 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 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!} 21:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-Dyario

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

Unreferenced since 2010 and the digital newspaper itself seems to be dead since 2015. No references found from GNews, GNews Archives and GBooks. Note that there might be Spanish language sources that I can't read/found. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 04:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Basic search revealed nothing with SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:16, 29 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!} 04:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete: The corresponding spanish article have three independent citation which shows it is likely notable but I can't find it passing WP:SIGCOV.GAGIWOR (talk) 04:52, 29 March 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!} 06:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Bates (poet)

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

Delete: fails notability, GNG, SIGCOV, POET. Nirva20 (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Nirva20 (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Indiana, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as mentioned above, does not meet WP:POET. His only somewhat famous work is "Speak Gently", but I couldn't find good sources even for that. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Speak Gently" is fairly widely reprinted, and his poetry has attracted a bit of critical discussion (though not an overwhelming amount) [28] [29] [30]. More importantly, we get significant coverage of Bates here from the reputable Martin Gardner, which includes mention of obituaries in the Philadelphia Public Ledger and Philadelphia Inquirer, and a bit of coverage here. There are also some brief contemporary reviews of The Eolian, ie [31] and [32] and [33]. I think there's enough here to establish notability, especially for someone from the 19th century. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those look like some good sources indeed, should they be added to the article as references? Bendegúz Ács (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- '''Keep''' Based on your listing of these handful of citations, I think there is a chance that the article subject could meet notability requirements. But, those citations need to be added to the article or else it simply appears too think to make it.WmLawson (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the sources presented above, Bates appears to meet WP:NBASIC, and the article should be kept rather than deleted per WP:NEXIST. Hatman31 (talk) 23:39, 4 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!} 08:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The fact that it was parodied in a rather famous book indicates it was at least somewhat well-known at the time. The new sources given are ok, it's not a lot, but just barely at GNG. Died over 100 yrs ago, not likely to have much coverage unless a scholar takes an interest and does a deep dive. Oaktree b (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Refs indicated above support WP:NEXIST. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:20, 7 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!} 03:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nica Digerness

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; has neither won a medal at an international competition, nor has she won the U.S. national championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 22 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!} 03:13, 29 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!} 01:55, 5 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!} 03:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Neudecker

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; has neither won a medal at an international competition, nor has he won the U.S. national championships at the senior level. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 22 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!} 03:12, 29 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!} 01:54, 5 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 Walgreens. History remains if someone wants to merge sourced material. Star Mississippi 01:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intercom Plus

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

Promotional article about a non-notable subject. This is a proprietary software program used internally at a single company. The article currently has no sources, and I can't find any good sources to add; the most I've found is a few brief summaries in company publications and old newspaper articles. It might warrant a mention in the Walgreens article, but it doesn't need its own article. IagoQnsi (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Walgreens, some secondary mentions to be verifiable but not independently notable from Walgreens. Some coverage in Computerworld [34] and this College of William and Mary case study [35]. ~ A412 ^talk! 05:36, 25 March 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 possible Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 29 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!} 01:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article is completely unsourced. Shadow311 (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per A412 -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:19, 11 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. Star Mississippi 01:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ventana Wilderness Alliance

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

A run of the mill local "cause" organization with little coverage beyond local area. Coverage in broader area sources are trivial, such as "Sykes had become an “attractive nuisance,” said Mike Splain, executive director of the Ventana Wilderness Alliance."

An article on company/organization needs significant, independent, reliable coverage in multiple sources and at least one of those needs to be a regional or national source. Graywalls (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and California. Graywalls (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 22 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!} 03:10, 29 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!} 01:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: This article by a California-wide magazine might count as regional significant coverage: [36], but it's an obscure publication. There's lots of information about this group out there, but as nom pointed out it's almost all local, affiliated with the VWA, and/or routine nonprofit listings. The article is well-written and informative, so it would be a shame to delete it, but without better sourcing that might be the only answer. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeirdNAnnoyed:, This is an organization, so NCORP is the stanard to be met. "obscure publication" would likely not pass WP:AUD Graywalls (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The recent RFC on athletes ties my hands, we have to abide by the guidelines it set and those editors arguing for Deletion have rejected the sources brought forward by those editors advocating Keep as being ROUTINE coverage. The new policy rules out even a "No consensus" closure. If an editor would like this article draftified or moved to their User space, let me know or put in a request at WP:REFUND Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Houbeib

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A regular national team player who plays in a league that gets pretty much zero regular coverage. He has no chance of SIGCOV even though he is clearly notable for Mauritanian football. Anwegmann (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Zero regular coverage" and "no chance", you mean coverage in English, right? I wouldn't know how to conduct a meaningful search in his alphabet, but he featured at the 2023 Africa Cup of Nations just a month ago. Geschichte (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His appearance at 2024 AFCON speaks to my point, I think. The Mauritanian and Iraqi leagues don't receive much coverage from trustworthy media sources—French, English, or Arabic—and individual Mauritanian players in the local league and more "obscure," for lack of a better word, leagues receive even less. My point is that a strict interpretation of WP:SIGCOV, without taking larger context and performance into account, skews coverage on Wikipedia away from non-Western players, venturing into WP:BIAS territory. Because Houbeib has appeared more than a dozen times for a national team and appeared in a major continental tournament recently that was broadcast around the world, to me, his notability is established. Would I like to see more significant coverage in classical media sources? Yes, of course. But in this case, I don't think it's required to keep the article. This isn't a third-division semi-pro player who represented his country once at under-19 level. This is a regular player for a national team that qualified for and played in a continental tournament. Anwegmann (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just made aware of this AfD in another discussion circling around the possibility of inherent notability due to national team caps. If anything, this provides some precedent for what I'm saying. I acknowledge, though, that 15 national team caps is a bit low for inherent notability, given the precedent established in the linked AfD. That said, though, appearance in the 2023 Africa Cup of Nations reasonably adds to this player's notability. I would be willing to change my vote to "draftify" if we can reach some kind of consensus about this. Anwegmann (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: the cap tally is now 21. I also believe that we are now far, far into WP:BIAS territory. There is a difference between a performing team like Mauritania and insignificant countries (within football) such as Belize and Nepal. But, alas: sources. Geschichte (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't fully agree that there is a difference between national teams, as they each have fundamental value in world football, I agree with your sentiment and overall point here. Houbeib continues to appear for a national team that recently performed in a continental tournament. This is well into the realm of WP:BIAS. Anwegmann (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:31, 8 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!} 23:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has international caps therefore he is undoubtedly notable. IJA (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which guideline states this? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if even the editors advocating to keep this article acknowledge there is not and will not be IRS SIGCOV then clearly a standalone article is not warranted. JoelleJay (talk) 19:29, 19 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) 02:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - coverage found here (signing), here (signing), here (contract extension), and probably many more Arabic-language sources. All I did was search the player's Arabic name (الحسن سالم احويبيب) and some immediate results came back. I can't read or understand Arabic so my search ended after these three articles— but I'm sure there's way more. Then, we need to consider that the bar for Mauritanian footballers' coverage is lower than for Western players, as there is just naturally more media coverage of sports in Western countries in general. Lastly, this guy has made 20+ caps for a prominent African national team, and has competed at a MAJOR tournament. The evidence of coverage existing, the threshold being at a certain level, and the prominence of the player all bring me to the conclusion that article needs to be kept & improved. I'd even suggest a page move to fix currently incorrect page title. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman and The Herald: Sources found. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should ping JoelleJay. I simply relisted. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are the definition of routine, trivial transactional coverage, not to mention non-independent since almost everything in them is quoted from the club. And the first two are essentially identical! Why would you link to those sources as evidence of SIGCOV if you didn't even read them?? JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these sources don't appear enough. Giant Snowman 19:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman and JoelleJay: Y'all have your bar set way too high for coverage of this player. You must remember that the subject is a Mauritanian footballer—not English, German, but Mauritanian. Also, playing at a major tournament like AFCON definitely means that Arabic-language sources exist... deleting this article would start a slippery slope in which hundreds non-Western articles would get deleted simply due to a lack of easily-findable coverage by editors that exclusively use Latin-alphabet keyboards. Take some time to do a proper Arabic-language search instead of bashing this article and not giving it much thought.
In my opinion, the surface-level presence of Arabic-language sources shows that relative to the depth of all coverage of Mauritania-related topics, this player has some kind of notability. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even more digging shows plenty of stuff about him popping up. this, this, and notably this. Yes, there is a routine feel to the coverage, but there's just a point where you have to understand that the bar is not as high as it would be for a player playing in Western Europe. The fact that there's just this many articles on a relatively obscure Mauritanian footballer says something. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is deleted, we could probably delete 50% of all articles about footballers from Arabic-language countries where media coverage is harder to find. That's not a good thing. I understand there are deletionists, but this isn't an article that should be deleted, especially considering how prominent this player is in African football. (Yes, competing at two AFCONs is quite prominent, I think). Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is just naturally more media coverage of sports in Western countries in general is literally why more athletes from Western countries are notable. If a subject doesn't get IRS SIGCOV then by definition it is not notable! What you are arguing is for us to reinstate presumptions of coverage--or even inherent notability--based on the subject reaching some arbitrary, subjective level of achievement, but such presumptions have been repeatedly and near-unanimously rejected.
Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 54#Renewed proposal for association football (soccer)
Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 55#Should we soften the phrase "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources."?
Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 52#Proposed Notability criteria track and field athletes (see WP:NTRACK) The community has rejected participation-based notability criteria even when a single appearance in some league or tournament empirically predicts SIGCOV 100% of the time; there is thus 0% chance of us accepting any criterion whose SIGCOV predictive power isn't supported by any evidence at all. JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2022 RfC made it clear the requirement for SPORTCRIT SIGCOV applies to all athletes, regardless of location or time. We do not change our bar for coverage based on where the subject is from. Conferring notability to some geographical subset of subjects via the exact same routine, trivial, and non-independent sources we dismiss for subjects everywhere else in the world is patronizing and would only encourage applying those same standards to progressively less encyclopedic tiers of Western subjects. And presuming actual SIGCOV does exist based only on the presence of such low-quality non-GNG sources is exactly what was deprecated through wide consensus two years ago.

The 4th source you link is identical to source #3, #5 is trivial coverage of the same topic, and literally the only secondary independent coverage of Houbeib in #6 is Al-Zawraa player, Mauritanian Al-Hassan Ahouibib, joined the team's training today, Monday, after the end of his vacation, which was granted to him with the cancellation of last season. The rest is taken directly from the club. This is the case for all of the sources you've linked: a couple sentences of routine transactional announcements interspersed with "the club said [blahblahblah]" and more general updates on the club as a whole. JoelleJay (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this article aught to be deleted, I urge you to start nominating every single other similar player article that has "less" notability than this guy. You'll find that there's much more coverage of this guy than some other players who survived AfD in the past or that have articles that happen to exist despite probably failing GNG/SPORTCRIT. I stand firmly in my belief that we're being too harsh here and that the coverage is enough. Also, how did you brush by these sentences?
1. Al-Hassan Ahwaibib is considered one of the reasons for the strength of Al-Zawraa’s defense during the past season, due to its consistent level during the tournament.
2.Huwaibib plays as a libero. He played great matches with Al-Zawraa last season, and succeeded in convincing coach Ayoub Odisho to renew with the team and lead the defense line...
These seem like notable secondary independent coverage of the subject. That's three different sources offering secondary coverage. Who says there isn't more? I can't properly do an Arabic-language search and this is what I found easily. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find significant, Arabic-language coverage, then great., I'll happily re-consider. Giant Snowman 19:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You will find that I have been extremely consistent in supporting deletion of hundreds of subjects with this level of coverage. We are slowly working through the backlog of poorly-sourced articles, so just because many still exist doesn't mean their standards of coverage are endorsed.
Those are among the routine, trivial sentences that I referenced above. We would not consider someone in the 5th tier of English football to meet GNG with such sources, we should not lower our standards just because you think footballers in certain regions deserve articles. JoelleJay (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I can't close this as Keep if there is no SIGCOV because the decision would be immediately taken to WP:Deletion review where the closure would be overturned. The possibility of Draftifying was raised, would this be an acceptable outcome until better sourcing can be located, perhaps in Arabic media sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are trivial and routine. If the subject does not receive significant coverage, there is nothing that can be done. Additionally, the argument pointing to the existence of other articles related to players from Arabic-speaking countries is irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

Industrial Insect (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing but routine transfer and signing news popping up. There are many many places online where somone can view the statistics and team history of a soccer player; Wikipedia needn't be one of them. Mach61 — Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that someone would say that Mauritius is an Arabic-speaking country. There's probably more Arabic spoken in many western countries than Mauritius! Nfitz (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: Why do you keep mentioning Mauritius? We're talking about a Mauritanian player. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - Mauritanian not Mauritian. Well, I should stop searching the Mauritian media! Aren't I the fool! Nfitz (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's nothing in WP:ROUTINE that says that articles about transfers are routine coverage; the example given there is "sports score" and "sports matches". If one wants to play by the "rules" that no longer make an international player (let alone with 20+ caps for his nation), one needs to not exaggerate the other "rules". Nfitz (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if transactional announcements weren't overwhelmingly considered routine by editors at AfD, as you well know, the sources above also fail independence by simply repeating what club officials have said, and fail SIGCOV by being trivial. Do you have any evidence of actual IRS SIGCOV or are you really claiming that the sources above that even other keep !voters acknowledge is routine and non-significant actually meet GNG? JoelleJay (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is what's in policy and guidelines - not what a few editors have pushed. I don't believe the claims of lack of independence are correct - how is this not independent? I'll admit photographs of him playing in major Canadian newspapers don't count for anything - other than my surprise. Nfitz (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz, the issue is that these short articles are primary sources (see WP:NEWSPRIMARY), and primary sources do not establish notability. Unlike secondary sources, they contain no original analysis or synthesis of existing primary sources Mach61 01:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see User talk:Mach61, how the that is an primary source. Also, can you please explain why Rimsport and Cridem are not independent. Nfitz (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz May you please stop trying to preform a Gish gallop and actually address my argument. I said nothing about independence, and I explained why I thought those sources were primary. Mach61 12:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - so rude. Why? I do not understand why you think that Rimsport and Cridem are primary sources. I don't see where you've explained why they are primary sources - you've simply stated they are. They don't look primary to me. Nfitz (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz Most every source you've brought so far is primary because they are original materials that are close to an event. As explained at WP:NEWSPRIMARY, a newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events. I called what you are doing a Gish gallop because you are not actually adressing the reasoning behind the arguments I have made, but are merely stating them to be incorrect without elaboration. Cheers, Mach61 20:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments? What arguments? You simply said it was primary, without even trying to explain why. And why pretend I've provided multiple sources, when I provided one, that despite multiple polite requests, you won't even discuss. This is not okay - you can't just make stuff up in AFD, User:Mach61. Nfitz (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain (or retract) User:Mach61? Nfitz (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No 🗿 Mach61 23:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage
Do you seriously need the policy to spell out "routine news coverage of announcements such as sports transaction announcements, ..."?
Someone else quoting/relaying information from primary non-independent sources does not make that information secondary and independent.
What you link now was not among the "sources above" that I referenced in my comment. It is still clearly routine transactional news of dubious independence--more than likely it is purely derived from the club's press release. JoelleJay (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy mention sports scores and sports matches. And that's the test for having an article about a match; not even for using it as a source. The article hardly reads like a press release, as it includes too much context. I don't think you can use a hypothesis of it being a reprint of a press release that you can't find as the basis for anything here. And really - 20 international caps - is this the hill to have a borderline debate about? Given the lack of online Mauritanian news, we should probably defer this until there's a good database of Mauritanian news. Nfitz (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quoting ROUTINE. I am quoting WP:NOTNEWS policy. Newspapers report on every transfer announcement with similar depth and little independent secondary contribution, with almost all facts derived from the club's press release. That is the definition of "routine news coverage of announcements ... [and] sports".
We have multiple people advising that Mauritanian news doesn't provide SIGCOV of this topic in general. We don't have any evidence to suggest otherwise, and we had global consensus to deprecate any presumption that such coverage exists based on number of matches or tournament appearances. JoelleJay (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I follow that logic to the end, doesn't it mean not mentioning any transfers of players in most articles - unless like something tragic happens during the transfer. Nfitz (talk) 22:31, 1 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!} 01:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andriy Nikolaychuk

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article are OBITs with all the normal problems. BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 01:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no reason to delete this article Salfanto (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What could keep the article from being deleted? Also I got a notification saying that the article had been reviewed Salfanto (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Salfanto (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC) (you can only cast one "vote" Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The reason for deleting this article is stated in the deletion nomination. There has been no rebuttal of these points of policy and simply stating "Keep" is not an effective argument on why they are not accurate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 29 March 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 Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences#Colleges granted affiliation by KUSMS to run MBBS courses. (wow, that's a long redirect) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Medical College

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

Contested draft, so we're here. No evidence of N:ORG level coverage for this private medical school nor its journal. Explicitly do not recommend Drafting since creator has history of moving articles back Star Mississippi 17:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Medicine, and Nepal. Star Mississippi 17:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 7 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!} 23:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough one. Only a few short years ago, we used to keep high schools and colleges if they existed. This one definitely exists. And it's not any old college, it's a medical college. Nepal doesn't have many of those. So, there is no way this isn't notable. But, WP:NEXIST stopped working as an argument a long time ago. And educational institutions come under WP:NORG now. I don't think we should stop anyone working on this in draftspace. For the mainspace, in the meantime, the best thing would be to redirect it to Kathmandu_University_School_of_Medical_Sciences#Colleges_granted_affiliation_by_KUSMS_to_run_MBBS_courses. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explicitly do not recommend Drafting since creator has history of moving articles back. It does not matter at AFD because AFD consensus to draftify would be enforceable with admin tools. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there is no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Mississippi, what do you think about redirecting as suggested above and allowing the creator to work in draftspace and use AFC if they want, with the understanding that anything AFD finds consensus for would be enforceable with admin tools? Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with that. But the problem is it's not really enforceable since AfC is optional. But fingers crossed. Star Mississippi 03:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Notable enough. There are few medical colleges in Nepal approved by Government of Nepal and Nobel Medical college is one of them and they have produced many doctors to the society. In fact to defend with it i would like to provide some reliable sources here[37][38][39]. DIV IN E

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 Video scaler#AI upscaling. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI video upscaler

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

Obviously AI generated WP:OR piece and there doesn't appear to be any actual coverage of this topic other than ads or questionable "top 10 best ai video upscalers 2024" type of lists. WP:JUNK StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wonder if there's a good redirect target to either video scaler or image scaling. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ai-written article about AI programs? I'm surprised there aren't sources about this, I don't see any sources, other than perhaps articles where it's briefly mentioned in hardware reviews for example. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't see value in redirecting versus BLOWITUP. Article is oddly similar to a "10 Best" blog post at the Cyberlink website, about products which claim to use AI for video scaling. I can't find SIGCOV in secondary sources about the use of AI in video scaling sufficient for a separate article, just product pages. Wikishovel (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect and merge if sourced properly~~ Redirect to Video scaler#AI upscaling – Rings bells of AI written, but AfD is not for cleanup. While not specifically written as "AI video upscaler", searching AI video upscaler on Google News gives us titles like Adobe unveils AI-driven Project ResUp for video upscaling, This YouTuber Upscaled a Scene From an 1895 Film to 4K 60FPS Using AI, others of that sort. Redirects are cheap, and this is a valid redirect in my opinion. TLA^tlak 11:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If not that I suggest renaming to AI upscaler. TLA^tlak 11:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest cleaning up and convert to a section in an "AI upscaler" article. Hym3242 (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hym3242, there is no AI upscaler. Video scaler and Image scaling are the targets that have been mentioned in the discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Video scaler: per TLA. - Master of Hedgehogs ^(converse) ^{(hate that hedgehog!)} 14:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'm questioning the wisdom of merging content that is suspected of being AI-generated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, do not merge to Video scaler#AI upscaling. - I added some (human generated) text, so now it's mentioned there. ~ A412 ^talk! 21:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, human. TLA^tlak 20:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, don't merge—this seems like a sensible solution. This article adds absolutely nothing of value to the 'pedia, or the world. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:11, 4 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. Although there is no second "delete" opinion, the "keep" opinions - with the exception of that by GMH Melbourne - are poorly argued: they assert notability, but do not cite specific sources or address the quality of the sources offered by others, which has been contested. Sandstein 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Green

AfDs for this article:

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

There is a lack of substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources that discuss the subject in depth. The current cited sources include passing mentions, a contributor piece, and an announcement of her inclusion in the 100 Women of Influence 2016 list, which does not automatically confer notability. Although a Google news search yielded some sources, they primarily consist of passing mentions or self-published materials, none of which establish independent notability. GSS ^💬 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Australia. GSS ^💬 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the article in Sydney Morning Herald is rather strong, but yes, Google News is mostly WP:PRIMARY.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/headdd-20170424-gvrdku.html		Newspaper of record		✔ Yes
https://www.afr.com/women-of-influence/why-networking-is-vital-when-starting-a-company-20190717-p52851	~ Basically just quotes.		~ Rather short section of the article.	~ Partial
https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2016/10/05/79021/green-recognised-on-women-of-influence-list/			Routine.	✘ No
https://apacentrepreneur.com/magazine-digital/vol-11-issue-10.html#features/11	paid promotion as noted by Scottyoak2	? Doesn't seem to be an established magazine?		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

TLA^tlak 16:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sydney Morning Herald piece is an interview, hence it should not be considered an independent source ~~article appears to be an interview-style piece with a "he said, she said" format~~, and it requires a subscription to access the entire content. Additionally, the Australian Financial Review article is published by a non-staff contributor and should be treated as self-published sources, similar to many at WP:RSP. GSS ^💬 17:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I evaluated my sources according to SIRS and wrote the content around this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you approved these sources. No offense, I just really want to understand what has changed since then. Fact and Curious (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact, I never approved these sources, which is why I declined your submission. These sources do not establish notability because they do not provide the required coverage for the subject, as pointed out above. GSS ^💬 17:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was just accepted today, I thought the editor's approval depends on the appropriateness of the sources. GSS suggested de-orphaning the page and improving the categories. I made these changes but now I'm a bit confused, was the fix that bad?

Also, I found another source that mentioned the subject, but just in case, I removed it now if it was causing the problem. Fact and Curious (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ : if these are the same person [40] and [41], I think we have notability. Australian person in the New York Times could be possible I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work digging that up. NYT is an international publication, so it's squarely within their breadth. TLA^tlak 20:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: The article from The New York Times seems to be an opinion piece, as it focuses not on the individual herself but rather on her views, evident in the frequent use of phrases such as "saying" and "said". Conversely, The Cut article is written by a different "Alison Green" and is unrelated to the subject of this article ~~self-published, bearing the name "by Alison Green"~~. GSS ^💬 04:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no. That NYT columnist is not the subject of this article. That columnist (born abt. 1974), is the daughter of an American journalist named, Steve Green, who died in 2001. The subject of this discussion (born 1986) is the daughter of John M. Green. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well spotted. Thank you for your attentive review. @Oaktree b:, considering these findings, it may be worth reevaluating.

04:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, without the two sources I listed above, I'm not sure. I can't really !vote one way or another. Struck my prior vote/comment, just going to sit this one out, so to speak. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are enough sources that exist (both in and out of the article) to establish notability under WP:GNG. I have found 4. Plus also I think it is safe to say the AFR article counts towards GNG. It is more than just quotes and SIGCOV refers to the substance of a source (ie. a passing mention) rather than the length of a source. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GMH Melbourne: I agree that there are articles, but simply having them doesn't automatically make someone notable; they should provide significant coverage, not just passing mentions or interviews. As mentioned before, the AFR article is written by a contributor. Can you please list the four articles here for review? Just saying you found four isn't enough; they need to be shown for proper consideration. GSS ^💬 04:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are the sources I have found (not already in the article) that count towards WP:GNG: [42] [43] + the AFR and SMH ones already mentioned. I understand that this is a borderline article but I think there is enough to meet GNG with at least two sources that qualify. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing the sources. To pass GNG, the subject needs coverage in independent, reliable sources. While the sources you mentioned are undoubtedly reliable, but they lack independence, so let's examine them closely. As I mentioned earlier, the article by ARF was authored by a contributor, not staff. According to WP:RSP, there's a consensus that such sources lack independence and should be treated as self-published. The SMH piece you mentioned is an interview, which is also not independent.

Now, let's discuss the two links you provided. The first one by ARF isn't about the subject of this AfD. The article includes comments from multiple people and heavily relies on their words. Similarly, the one from the Daily Telegraph heavily depends on phrases like "he said" and "she said". Since they aren't independent, they are insufficient to establish notability. GSS ^💬 04:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding this potential source: https://apacentrepreneur.com/magazine-digital/vol-11-issue-10.html#features/11 ... APAC Entrepreneur is solicited advertising. Their article subjects are expected to pay to be included on the site. You might find this interesting: [44]. And this: [45]. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fixed up the table. TLA^tlak 12:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is within WP:GNG. Good sourcing. Period.BabbaQ (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ:, could you please highlight which sources you believe are good? Numerous sources are discussing a different individual with the same name, leading to confusion. Additionally, there are a few sources consisting of interviews. Thank you. GSS ^💬 17:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems some disagreement on the suitability of the source material. Additional analysis on this point would be very useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was relisted twice in the same day so consider this the second, not third, relisting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the subject is notable and there are sources to demonstrate that. Nathan N Higgers (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) — Nathan N Higgers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just stating "there are sources" doesn't actually establish anything. You need to specify which sources, because as I mentioned above and in my deletion rationale, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. While there are some sources, they aren't about this person, but about a different person under the same name. Additionally, it is suspicious that you were registered today and your first edit was to !vote here, so I highly suspect there is a case of WP:PAID and/or socking. GSS ^💬 05:20, 29 March 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 Nassau County, Florida. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nassau County Soil and Water Conservation District

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

No secondary sources and few appear available. Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and Florida. AusLondonder (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nassau County, Florida. WP:ORGCRIT is the wrong set of criteria for evaluating a soil and water conservation district. Such a district is a part of local government with its own elected leaders, decision-making and finances, rather like the port authorities some cities have. In this case, relatively little information is available online, partly because any Google hits for it are hidden by the multiple hits for Nassau County Soil and Water Conservation District in Nassau County, New York state. The New York district probably could be its own article. The Florida district could be merged into the article on its county. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:28, 29 March 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 for some reason, an editor would like to include content from this deleted article in that OR page, contact your local administrator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Five grains in world culture

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

This isn't really a list article: it's someone's theory about how the juxtaposition of the number "five" and whatever gets translated to the English word "grain" is somehow significant. I think we would need a source for that significance, rather than a list of things chosen by the author in a fit of original research. Mangoe (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Mangoe (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regret as it’s fascinating but a textbook case of WP:OR. Mccapra (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a wild-growth abnormality of a disambiguation page that is contrary in almost every way to MOS:DAB and while it could be fixed, there is a "five grains" disambiguation page at Five grains (disambiguation), so the result would be a duplicate of that page at the wrong name—or—the page is a spectacular free-association style failure of a set-index article, and we can not and should not have such a set index article and in this respect the page can not be fixed. I am against redirecting because the name is nonsensical.—Alalch E. 12:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless we can copy some of it to WP:OR as an example, after all it's CC-by-SA so why not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could move to a subpage of Wikipedia:No original research/Examples.—Alalch E. 15:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for reasons stated above. The article is a pretty clear case of WP:OR and a wonderful example of what not to do when writing an article. ArkHyena (talk) 15:08, 30 March 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 article has no secondary sources and editors arguing to Keep it have not located any themselves. Making an accusation against the nominator is no substitute for finding reliable sources if you'd like to preserve an article on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KMAC (FM)

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

Small town station on air for less than a decade. No secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Oklahoma. AusLondonder (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a possible redirect, if this is ever created, to Oklahoma Catholic Radio. This network of stations owned KMAC and probably ran it as a rebroadcaster of their statewide service. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At the very least, there's virtually no way this station garnered its own significant coverage. (I doubt the Oklahoma Catholic Radio network in general had much of any either, but that's probably another matter.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No evidence that OP has exhausted the steps set forth by WP:BEFORE. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a good faith rationale for keep. I have looked for sources, and found nothing. I did find a Taco Bell franchise of the same name which seems to be more notable than this station. I presume you looked as well? AusLondonder (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Neutralhomer, and maybe others knowledgable about the radio industry can look at the recent spurt of prods of radio stations by the nominator, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:40, 29 March 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!} 01:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Data Breaches of United States Citizen Data

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:CROSSCAT. I don't see significant independent coverage of this specific categorization. While List of data breaches clearly passes LISTN, and a theoretical List of data breaches in the United States might pass LISTN, I don't think this one does. While the sourcing is good, they're all about specific data breaches, not this grouping. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United States of America. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Викидим (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, noting as well that the calculation of breaches as being "largest data breaches of US citizen data" appears to be pure OR--the listed entries are described in sources as affecting US-based companies/customers, but at no point do they attempt to quantify the amount of US citizens affected by the breach. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this category does not meet the WP:LISTN and WP:CROSSCAT criteria.Dejaqo (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify then create Redirect from this page title.‎. I think if a simple Revert to a Redirect is done as proposed, the edit can easily be reverted by a passing editor. Also, if there is a Redirect, moving a draft article back to this page title will require assistance from a page mover or admin so it's not a casual move back to main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burkhard Garweg

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

I think that this article should be reverted to its pre-existing redirect to Members_of_the_Red_Army_Faction#Third_generation_Red_Army_Faction_(1982–1993) on WP:BLPCRIME and GNG considerations. In contrast to other 3rd generation RAF members Daniela Klette and Ernst-Volker Staub, Garweg has not actually been convicted of any crime. Coverage is fleeting, exclusively in the context of suspected activities in the third-generation RAF, and the stronger of the cited sources, Der Spiegel solely frames criminal charges against Garweg beyond association with the third-generation RAF in attribution to the authorities rather than as statements of fact, as well as stating that little is known about Burkhard Garweg (Über Burkhard Garweg ist nur wenig bekannt). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Politics, Terrorism, and Germany. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree, this is certainly of interest to researchers of the Red Army Faction and their activities post-1998. Seeing as there has recently been news related to the attempted arrest of Garweg https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/04/german-prosecutors-urge-red-army-faction-suspects-to-surrender, and he remains on the EUROPOL "Most wanted list" https://eumostwanted.eu/index.php/garweg-burkhard, there are enough sources online to make this article worthwhile. As for this page being deleted on WP:BLPCRIME, I'll point out that many of the people "at large" in FBI Most Wanted Terrorists have never been convicted in court either and have similar amounts of news coverage as Burkhard Garweg. WintermuteKnows (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you've linked contain basically no biographical information about Garweg other than the fact that he is wanted by the German authorities. The same cannot be said of the entires on FBI Most Wanted Terrorists that have their own articles. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:20, 13 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) 17:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I can only check one of the three sources since two are paywalled but can AGF when Rosguill says there isn't much significant coverage and there isn't much on the two sources supplied by WintermuteKnows. This may change in future so I don't think delete is the best option, which leaves me at draftify so as to remove from public-facing space. Mujinga (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, or at least draftify until it's been rewritten. Most of this article is about actions of the 3rd generation RAF that he may or may not have participated in (the article literally says he probably joined the RAF, the cited source does not mention him by name, and the article also says it's unclear who actually did what with the RAF). If he's notable for being on Europol's most wanted list, then the article should be about the robberies and whatnot he's wanted for, and not contain a bunch of info on politically motivated killings that he may or may not have been involved with (you'd need some serious sources to meet BLPCRIME for assassination when his Europol listing is for aggravated robbery). As it stands, this really feels like an article about several people and the terrorist group they (probably, using the wording of the article) joined, not the actual subject of the article. EasyAsPai (talk) 20:38, 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!} 20:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prove has today been published linking Garweg to Daniela Klette see here. (Apart from that he is a personality in the international media with detailed information.) 82.174.61.58 (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't look like significant coverage: In het huis van de gearresteerde RAF-terrorist Daniela Klette zijn sporen gevonden van twee andere gezochte RAF-terroristen; Ernst-Volker Staub en Burkhard Garweg. Dat meldt de recherche in Nedersaksen. Een foto bewijst dat Burkhard Garweg in het appartement van Klette in Berlijn is geweest. Op het beeld is te zien dat hij bij haar thuis op de bank zit tussen twee honden in. Waarschijnlijk onderhielden hij en Klette nauw contact.

I would be persuaded by sources with biographical information about this subject; the above is circumstantial evidence and speculation. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - This article proves that they are linked. That’s what I’m saying 82.174.61.58 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to the satisfaction of WP:BLPCRIME: A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. Your comments here largely underline the importance of abiding by this policy and converting the article back to a redirect. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note regarding the rationale of the nominator In contrast to other 3rd generation RAF members Daniela Klette and Ernst-Volker Staub, Garweg has not actually been convicted of any crime —> Klette is also not (yet) convicted. But please correct me if I’m wrong. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 29 March 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. Given the sources found, there is a consensus now to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spaghetti Taco

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

This doesn't deserve it's own article- It only appeared in five episodes and has no notable significance. I think this article should be deleted. WizardGamer775 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WizardGamer775 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it has a significant enough cultural impact to deserve it's own article Fwedthebwead (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something would have enough cultural impact if it was not only limited to five episodes. Something that would have cultural impact, for example is Ellen DeGeneres in 1997 "coming out" on her show- this led the way to the concept of coming out for LGBT. But spaghetti tacos has no significance.

I see that you're new to Wikipedia so welcome by the way. WizardGamer775 (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcome! The reason I originally made this article was because I read the article for Yakisoba-pan, which reminded me of the spaghetti taco. I just wanted to put it in the see also section Fwedthebwead (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could put it into the article for Yakisoba-pan as a separate section e.g. In popular Culture instead of an article. WizardGamer775 (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright that sounds good :D Sorry for inconveniencing you! Fwedthebwead (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the critereon Wikipedia usually uses to decide if something deserves or doesn't deserve an article is significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, i.e. WP:Notability. Which is mostly independent from how often it appeared in its original source. We have one such source in the article, I believe. Are there enough out there to support a full article? Checking this should be done by the nominator before the nomination as explained in WP:BEFORE. What were the results? (The Google news search looks pretty promising). Does anyone else want to look now? Daranios (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. I believe there's just enough material for a stand-alone article in accordance with WP:Notability, even if a light one, and no ideal merge target suggests itself. If the sources are felt as being to brief, a merge to the suggested Yakisoba-pan might be ok, based on e.g. this article, which suggests a loose connection. Daranios (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge This doesn't pass the threshold for WP:SIGCOV. Even so, it's a WP:NOPAGE situation where there isn't much to say. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge per Shooterwalker. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 05:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and oppose merge or redirect to Yakisoba-pan. Meets WP:GNG, including the 2010 feature article in The New York Times which was widely syndicated and the 2022 Mashed article which also helps to demonstrate that there has been WP:SUSTAINED interest in spaghetti tacos as a dish over time. I have added a few other sources to the article, and there are oodles of recipes available on the Internet; I've cited the "Fiesta spaghetti taco" recipe on the Betty Crocker website. None of these articles mention "yakisoba-pan" which is why I'm opposed to that particular merge (and FWIW, I'm not convinced the quality of the sources in the other article are necessarily better than the sources cited here). Finally, if this article is kept, it should be moved to "Spaghetti taco" with a small "t" which currently is a redirect to iCarly. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete this isn't a notable character The Trash Compactor (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Trash Compactor has now been indef blocked as Wikipedia:NOTHERE. — Maile (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's got an article in the NY Times, the Independent [46] and the Pocono Reocrd [47]. Decent sourcing, I think we have GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are enough reliable sources available to satisfy notability. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per added sources. Toughpigs (talk) 19:16, 29 March 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. Please add new sources to this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gan Kofim

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG Falls a mile short on references much less GNG references. Of the 7 references, 5 are the IMDB pages of participants, one is a facebook page, and one is about the person that the film was inspired by with nothing about the film. So zero references about the film. Accordingly 98% of the article is a wiki-editor-created plot summary . North8000 (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems to have been nominated for awards [48], so there is a strong possibility it's a notable film, but I agree with the nom; sources used now in the article aren't valid. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NFILM, a film meets notability if "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." The film received full-length reviews in a number of national publications in Israel, including Calcalist, Ynet, Haaretz, Walla, and Mako. These should be added to the article, but for now are enough to establish GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Longhornsg, but the article does need work. FortunateSons (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film meets notability requirements for films, article should be improved. Marokwitz (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easy pass of WP:NFILM and the WP:GNG. The nomination is a clear WP:NEXIST failure! WP:SNOW also applies. 15:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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 Registered Agents Inc.. There is consensus against keeping this as a biographical article given that the person is apparently covered only in the context of his businesses, but there is no consensus to outright delete. Which leaves us with a redirect as the only possible outcome. Sandstein 07:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Keen

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

First, unless it can somehow be confirmed that this guy is the owner of this company (and even if he is) I don’t know how this is notable other than part of the company article. There is an allegation of ownership in the reference article, but his ownership (or even employment) is denied by the company’s lawyer said that this guy acted as an agent for the transaction and is not an owner or employee. Second, Weird story about an unnamed landscaping company to domain registrar? I’m not sure how this is notable. If anything, he maybe gets a mention on the underlying company pages that he’s allegedly the owner if even that hits the bar, but i don’t see that he deserves his own article. Third, my gut feeling is that this appears to be a hit piece as there are allegations of neo nazi ties, etc. Caution must be exercised in these types of allegations. The Registered Agents Inc. Company confirmed ownership of Epik in the press release cite (as of Feb 2024, not 2023), but there doesn’t seem to be anything but an allegation about Keen and this could be considered libelous without a more solid citation. But again, my feeling is that this article is a hit piece if the guy even actually exists. Dougieb (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dougieb (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Something is rotten about this deletion from the nominator, who suddenly came back on en.wiki after a ten-year hiatus and seems to have had issues within the registered agent topic area in the past; three soild sources for the article from mainstream outlets about the subject, and a rationale that may be over the line and hitting WP:NLT regarding allegations being libelous. Epik is also heavily known for hosting sites most hosts wouldn't touch and has been exhaustively documented. @Dougieb:, please declare any conflicts of interest immediately and reel back the legal threats because that's not how we play at all in article or AfD spaces. I am also pinging @Amigao: and @Grayfell:, who dealt with a certain editor, Dunkinidaho (talk · contribs) who has been trying to remove Keen's name from the Epik article despite the Wired/WaPo sourcing; also declare if you are related to that account. Nate • (chatter) 00:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about addressing the crux of my AFD rather than attacking the messenger? MY AFD is not WP:NLT because I didn’t make a threat, I just reasonably suggested that before tagging someone a Neo Nazi (which could be considered per se defamation), perhaps there should be some solid ground for doing so. Having read the cited articles (which the actual crux of one is using fake personas), it is not even clear whether “Dan Keen” even exists which is how I ended up here in the first place today. You are mirepresenting that there are “three solid sources” for Dan Keen existing much less being owning this company or being associated with Neo Nazis. The only source mentioning him is the Wired article which ALLEGES that he owns the company, but later notes that the company said he was an agent for the transaction and is not an owner or employee of the company. Why is there no other source anywhere tying this guy to the company anywhere? I it another fake name as described in the cited articles? The Epik company is “heavily known for hosting sites most wouldn’t touch”, that is not in question, but this isn’t about that. This is about the claim that this guy owns it, and if he bought it, is he a Neo Nazi? If there is anything substantive tying this guy (if he exists) to either company, please point it out because I’m interested myself, but everything I’ve found just cites the Wired article. No I’m not related to Dunkinidaho , however from what I’ve seen, the Registered Agent Inc. Company appears to be based in Idaho, so there is your clue. If Keen does exist and his company did buy Epik, are they still hosting these sites? Or did they boot them? From the press release it seems the latter, so if this is not a hit piece, why mention it? I have zero conflicts of interest and actually want someone to prove me wrong here and put up something substantial. But in the meantime, this smells like a hit piece which would be funny if the guy ends up being another of the alleged “fake personas.” @Amigao seems to have had issues with sourcing in the past, so there is that. Dougieb (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As MrSchimpf explains, this nomination was your first edit in almost exactly ten years. You also have a warning on your talk page for adding spam to National Registered Agents, Inc. back in 2008. You're not helping your case by getting all indignant and verbose about the obvious WP:COI issues this raises. Oh, and WP:NLT absolutely does apply here. Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I haven’t edited in ten years. The former disputed article about National Registered Agents Inc. Back in 2008 was not even SPAM. I believe this was a long time before this Registered Agents Inc. Thing ever started. There is no reasonable argument that Keen is notable - if he even exists. If anything, he’s a footnote in the Registered Agents Inc article as a footnote that he is the alleged owner. It is not helpful to have disinformation and mischaracterization of Wired articles as legitimate content. National Registered Agents was a legit major company eventually acquired by CT Corporation which is a subsidiary of Wolters Kluwer, a multi-billion $ publicly traded company.

What is suspect is reading the cites on this article and trying to reconcile them with the hit piece that is the Keen article. I’ve found two potential Dan Keens and nothing connects together. I hope that you can find something to substantiate both his ownership of these companies and his existence. Perhaps the community working together can do this. The cited article is literally about fake personas, and signs point to Keen being one of them. If biographies of imaginary people are a thing on Wikipedia now, yay for that. Nate’s contention that there are “three solid sources” for the article is also very telling. Note that I didn’t even bother to correct the blatant factual disconnects between the article and the cites, but submitted AFD instead. You want me to correct the errors instead? Because then the accusations would really fly. What is Adigao’s agenda here? That is the question. Dougieb (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the community working together can do this. this isn't what AFD is for. See WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP and WP:OR. Currently sources do not suggest he is a fake persona, so using that possibility as a reason to delete the article is misleading, at best. Sources say that according to multiple sources Keen is the founder and owner of the company. That a company founded on secrecy and technically-legal obfuscation would be evasive about this is too boring to bother with. If you have reliable sources, propose them. Alternately, if you have a valid, policy-based reason the current sources are insufficient, explain that reason. If, instead, you think this is a WP:BLP issue, make that case directly, but don't just throw out a bunch of reasons in the hopes that one will stick, because that is disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s only a WP:BLP issue if he’s real. If turns out he’s real then yeah the nazi thing would need to be cleaned up. Let’s say he is real… okay he buys this domain registrar that hosted nazi stuff, then he (new owner) gets rid of the nazi stuff, so is it still appropriate to tie him to the Nazi stuff? The company sure. Dougieb (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dougieb, if you think a WP:GREL source like Wired is disinformation, the place to raise that and make your case is WP:RSN. - Amigao (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it’s disinformation per se. I just think maybe they were duped into this Keen thing perhaps to distract from Havre. Dougieb (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLT very-Specifically does not apply here, Grayfell. It is a very heavy link to accuse a fellow editor, IMO, thank you for making me aware of it. Dunkinidaho (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We follow what the WP:RSes state. According to the Feb 8th Wired article, "[T]he founder and owner of Registered Agents...is a man named Dan Keen." The March 5th Wired article is a more in-depth investigation of Dan Keen and the company he founded, Registered Agents Inc., following the acquisition of Epik. It should be noted that WP:NLT is hard Wikipedia policy. Agreed with MrSchimpf that we need to get any COI issues here openly declared in accordance with WP:COI and WP:PAID. - Amigao (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you don’t have ulterior motives and are being objective, I would think you would also want to include that in the same article, the company denied that “Keen” is an employee or owner. I suspect “Keen” may be one of the fake personas, but if so, why does the company lawyer say he was a “consultant in the acquisition?” There are a couple Dan Keens I found and I’m trying to find out more about them to see if they are “the” Dan Keen. The Wired article states, “ In an email, a lawyer for Registered Agents Inc. says Keen is not the owner nor an employee of Registered Agents Inc. or Epik, and that he acted as a consultant in the acquisition.” So… which is it? And if we find this guy and even if he is an owner or employee, does this warrant his own article? Or should this be merged since his only notariety appears to be his connection to this company. Dougieb (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several reliable sources discuss Keen in sufficient depth, thus meeting WP:NBIO. Per the cited sources, including Epik's own press release, Keen's company isn't merely acting as a registered agent for Epik, it is providing registered agent services to Epik's customers. More sources and more context would, obviously, be welcome. There are potential WP:BLP issues here, but these would have to be addressed directly, not obliquely as a WP:CRYBLP attempt to censor the article. Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same exact source. All of these sources end up back at the same source. WP:CRYBLP doesn’t really apply (yet?) because someone first needs to establish that it is even an existing person much less living. The only “Dan Keen” i can find is a musician/producer and while its not impossible that it is actually him, I am unable to connect the dots so maybe someone else can succeed where I have failed. [MrSchimpf] “keenly” (LOL) above noted that there was a user [DunkinIdaho] who has been attempting to edit the page - and the underlying company does have a connection to Idaho, so that is interesting to me. As far as notability, this would be okay if we first could substantiate that the guy exists at all. Since the press release from the company says that he was a “consultant” in the acquisition, that’s the only thing I see that suggests that he does exist, but this company has been accused in the same article of using fake personas and fake names, so it is a dead end. I’m not saying to censor the article at all. Actually I should have suggested AFD-Merging it into the company article. Dougieb (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses reliable sources to 'establish' that he exists. For us to try and do that ourselves would be original research. A press release is usable as a primary source, but we generally do not use press releases for contested information, and we do not attempt to interpret primary sources in this way, either, as that is also a form of original research.

If you have some reason to think this source is unreliable, you should explain that, because your personal inability to verify the source is not a valid reason. Grayfell (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can verify the source. The guy doesn’t seem to exist other than in a Wired article. It is just bizarre. Why isn’t there something else on this guy out there? Nobody is that far off the grid. I just suspect it is another fake name in this group of other fake names. I’d love to use another source… where is it?! In one group people discuss that apparently Keen can’t be served with legal service because no process server can find him or even verify that he exists. That’s original research (and hearsay), so I wouldn’t put it in an article. But what is up here? Nobody is that invisible. Dougieb (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Keen's existence is not the issue. As you've pointed out twice, a company attorney claimed did not deny his existence but merely stated that Keen acted as a "consultant." Given that Wikipedia follows what WP:RSes state as a matter of policy, do you have a WP:RS that contradicts the other reliable sources cited in the article? Amigao (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree! Existence, neither here nor there. Learning more about CRYCRYBLP from Grayfell or following WP:RS seems very distractive to me as well, at least currently. If we were to AGF and assume both your wired articles to be a single, independent and reliable source (and it doesn't possibly need in-text attribution to "Ex-Employees" added to furnish it's info)... Where's other WP:SIGCOV so that it can overcome a potential WP:GNG issue here and be more clarifying? Dunkinidaho (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SOFT DELETE/DRAFTIFY - The tldr to me is this:

1. This page is NOT enyclopedic in substance AND the author's motives seem...off.

2. This doesn't have a snowballs chance of surviving as a NPOV BLP unless this story develops and builds into something with more sources.

3. The only sources with the subject's name attached are two related stories, both from Wired. I don't think that meets notability standards for a BLP. These sources are non-independent of eachother.

4. If the editor's true intent was to provide information from a neutral point of view, and NOT low-key doxx the subject, this page would be about Registered Agents Inc and Keen would have a section within it. That way you would avoid any BLP drama, the information on this page lives there, and you can follow a chain of facts if you want to know more. But I don't think neutral or straight facts are the intent here.

Expanded reasoning:

The page was written by an established editor here who must know sourcing is thin and is trying to make up for weak sourcing with other articles that mention Registered Agents Inc, which is arguably the actual subject of both Wired articles, and that's certainly the case with everything else that's been used as a source on the Dan Keen page. That's why I suggested on the talk page of this article that the real subject is Registered Agents Inc, just like the actual owner of Epik is also Registered Agents Inc. That's fact and there's plenty of sourcing for ownership of that property (public business records and news articles) just like there's plenty of internal wikipedia sourcing for how to treat a company infobox, but @Grayfell and @Amigao only seem to like rules when those rules back their opinions.

I'm not saying Keen shouldn't be mentioned when talking about Registered Agents Inc. or Epik. But the desire to disregard the company and make a page for Keen when sourcing seems thin, and when asked why not make it a Registered Agents Inc page, their reaction was to tattoo my talk page with a COI tag? That just feels gross. Why not just talk to me first? Also, I’m fairly new here, but is there a non-nefarious reason you purposely Transcluded the UW-paid template onto my page instead of protocol? Your first branding was responded to, promptly, and now you've now done so twice.

For the record, no one is paying me to edit this. I have no vested interest in this company or person, and I very much dislike now being associated with whatever weird corporate shill/thing DougieB is that kicked this thing off (thanks @MrSchimpf. good luck on your deck-stacking attempt--for reference, please see edit history here (keep: as Per nate). that's just lame).

Anyway, I've said Keen's role is unclear in the company because in the Wired article, the company's formal response was to say that Keen isn't an employee or the owner and that Wired's facts were "patently false." On the other side of that is quotes from ex-employees of a business that uses aliases to do most things.

It's wild that that's the company that bought the Alt Right's domain registrar and then was on twitter calling the Alt Right "beta snowflakes" after kicking Kiwi Farms off their platform. Not only is that objectively funny, the whole thing sounds nuts (albeit not too nuts to warrant a mention of Epik’s termination in either article.)

I didn't even know the Alt Right had a domain registrar until a couple months ago, but back then if you’d asked me, I would've also thought the Wiki-editorial community had a much more academic agenda. Dunkinidaho (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know the Alt Right had a domain registrar until a couple months ago You were adding PR to the Epik page in June of 2023. Before that you had made only ten edits (enough to get autoconfirmed) and have made a grand total of 36 edits. Your willingness to lecture and insult more experienced editors about Wikipedia policy suggest that this isn't your first account. Grayfell (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "PR" I contributed to the Epik page in June of 2023 should look very familiar. It's the 5th source cited here on this page you're currently defending. You're absolutely right. My Expanded Reasoning did exhibit some "willingness" to stray from discussing this Articles' wiki merit...

As a newer editor (first account, unfortunately) I will be keeping my future responses limited to the substance of the Dan Keen page, as you did in your response to it. Dunkinidaho (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL… bro I got your “weird corporate shill/thing” right here. As was noted, I haven’t made an edit in probably ten years but was compelled here because this just doesn’t add up. The only Keen i can find anywhere is some musician and he doesn’t seem like a guy that owns and runs a couple giant companies. It just smelled of a hit piece, but is it a hit piece if the guy doesn’t actually exist? It would hold up a little better if the whole thing wasn’t about alleged fake personas and names. TBH I probably would have let the whole thing drop, but then I also got a COI from the article’s author which made me say hmm… If this guy exists and owns these two apparently large companies, there HAS to be something somewhere on him, right?Dougieb (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Epik article. Keen as a standalone page fails WP:GNG as there's nothing notable about Keen aside from Epik and Registered Agents, Inc. The Wired article mentions Keen 15 times, but sources everything to the accounts of anonymous ex-employees, such as: "Keen is described by former employees as a driven but eccentric businessman who is prone to micromanagement and sudden shifts in mood." and "Keen dresses modestly, former employees say, wearing shorts and flannel shirts, and is an avid skier and outdoorsman". What other WP:SIGCOV is there on Keen himself? BBQboffin^{grill me} 17:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, the Feb 8th Wired article mentions him 8 times while the more in-depth March 5th Wired article mentions him 15 times. - Amigao (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also amenable to delete. BBQboffin^{grill me} 06:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or merge) to Epik article. There isn’t even sufficient information (to me anyway) to demonstrate conclusively that Keen exists. The Wired article is the only source and the article talks about how the company allegedly uses fake names and personas. Is this just another fake name? If he does exist, the article could be considered libelous as it alleges neo nazi ties which IF he did purchase Epik, it isn’t clear that they still do. Also, the way the article was written omitting that in the same article that the Companies denied that Keen is an employee or owner suggested to me that there was ulterior motive in its creation.Dougieb (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate vote You cannot vote! on your own nomination, which is assumed as delete unless you add onto your rationale above. Nate • (chatter) 22:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware. My apologies. My rationale was that even if not deleted per my nom, then alternatively redirect, that is if anything at all. Thank you though.Dougieb (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Epik. This person is not the subject of substantial coverage by reliable secondary sources except where the sources are actually covering the company. Optionally also delete before redirecting, since having this article history isn't particularly helpful. JFHJr (㊟) 22:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationales below. Thank you each for your perspectives. JFHJr (㊟) 05:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This subject does not appear to meet minimum notability standards. The primary or only citations of note are the Wired articles, and those alone seem insufficient. Consider: if the subject was mentioned positively in only a couple of articles like this, would this person merit having biographical articles? There's a much better case for Wikipedia biography for Chris Xu, founder of Shein, for instance -- but, he has no bio article here, either. While notability can be established with relatively few sources, it's typically established with more substantive references than this. There's a lot of what appears to be complete tangents here in the Afd discussion as to the concerns that there has been some COI involved in the nomination for deletion, but all of that seems extraneous to the question of whether the article should exist at all. Again, if the degree of promotion of the person in those articles were the same, but the overall sentiment was positive, would they alone be sufficient to base bio notability upon? Not at all. Those articles established a factoid about possible ownership that appears notable enough to mention in the Epik article, but it's not enough to flesh out an article about Keen. (Simply adding facts about the Registered Agents company instead of specifics about him is also not sufficient to flesh out his article.) Also, I do not see why this name should be a redirect for the Epik article as this is not an alternate name for it, nor would it be likely for someone seeking Keen to desire to be presented with Epik.WmLawson (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Given that some editors are now arguing for a Redirect option, I'm relisting this discussion for a few more days, perhaps a full week. Since there is a challenge to the article sources as being insufficient, a formal source analysis would be helpful to whomever closes this discussion. And while it's unusual for an editor to return after a decade away to nominate an article for deletion, some of these Keep opinions look like they are in reaction to suspicions about the nominator, instead of focusing on the merits of the article. If another editor had made this nomination, would you still advocate Keeping it? No accusations, I'm just posing the question. Also, I don't really see a BLP issue with this article as all of the "neo-Nazi" allusions are directed to the company's policies, not the owner or any other individual so they are not being made against a "living person" but a business.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources in the article that reference Keen at all are the two Wired stories. While I would agree that these would count toward the bare minimum on GNG, other factors argue against his notability: (1) Per WP:NSUSTAINED, we would want to see Keen's notability sustained over a longer period of time, not just the past month or so since the Wired coverage began to reference him. (2) Keen's notability, such as it is, seems to be related to Registered Agents Inc's purchase of Epik, so WP:BLP1E applies. He is by all (aka two in a single magazine) accounts a low-profile person, not accused of any crime, and that also argues against notability. (3) The two reliable sources provided on Keen provide very little details on his life and career, resulting in a non-encyclopedic stub-length piece that focuses mostly on his businesses. If those are notable, cover those, but the volume of coverage of Epik and Registered Agents Inc in this BLP makes it a WP:COATRACK. For these reasons, until there are more details on Keen reported by more reliable sources over a sustained period of time, this BLP should be deleted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the newly-created Registered Agents Inc., where there is heavy overlap. I note that the page creator is the same. The existing Dan Keen page is primarily about the business rather than the person, and so the content is best included on a page focussing on the business. There are already links there to Epik. Klbrain (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that in the new Registered Agents Inc. page, it seems to focus again on Epik. Arguably, there is more about Epik in the first paragraph of the RAI page than there is about RAI. Again, it just smells to me like a hit piece and Keen being the owner still seems like only an allegation at this point. Maybe suspected over… disputed owner? Alleged owner? (Since the company denies it). Dougieb (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of his contributions of all time is changing all mentions of the official Communist Party of China/CPC, to the ethnicized misnomer, "Chinese Communist Party"/CCP. He uses his "twinkle" status to quickly revert all mentions of CPC back to the red scare-y version. Truly a loyal American Imperial Party Anti China patriot. Han75 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think there is reasonable doubt against a redirect to Registered Agents Inc. but as a ATD I would swing that way over allowing this article to remain. This article is more about the companies than the intended subject. It falls short of even being an attempt at a biography but a is actually a resume which is Wikipedia's policy on What Wikipedia is not. According to the Wired source it is not clear who owns the companies. Since "Wired" is touted as a reliable source then there is doubt about the owner. Anonymity is not a good reason to create a BLP. It might fly for a long time or until some action initiates the piercing the corporate veil such as violating tax laws like failure to report "beneficial owner reports". A legal agent may protect an Undisclosed Principal until such time as the agent may be held responsible for actions of the principle. Two unnamed people identify the subject as owner. Nothing actually reliable there. A lawyer claims the subject is not the owner of either company. I think Wikipedia should bank more on the Wired source that there is an email from a lawyer that the subject does not own either company. The founder and owner of Registered Agents, according to two people familiar with the company, is a man named Dan Keen. In an email, a lawyer for Registered Agents Inc. says Keen is not the owner nor an employee of Registered Agents Inc. or Epik, and that he acted as a consultant in the acquisition. While Registered Agents Inc. might be confirmed as the owner of Epik LLC through a press release there is doubt about the subjects ownership. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Registered Agents Inc.: The only SIGCOV of Keen seems to be in the two Wired articles, which is not enough to meet GNG. However, Keen is a valid search term for RAI. From skimming both the RAI and Epik articles and their sources, Keen seems to be linked more to RAI than to Epik, although search results for (1) "Dan Keen" and "Registered Agents Inc." and (2) "Dan Keen" and "Epik" turned up very few results. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that I'm not sure that RAI is notable. It only seems to have received SIGCOV in articles that are part of a series by a collaboration of reporters, which doesn't qualify as multiple sources for GNG purposes: Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this article should remain given the current sourcing, so I would accept a redirect to Registered Agents for purposes of building consensus/closing. However my preference is delete. Dan Keen is mentioned only in the two Wired articles. In the "Far Right's Favorite Web Host" article, the entire reference to him is 1. His name and position (according to two former employees) 2. A denial that he is an employee or owner, but rather a "consultant" 3. A description as being "intensely private" with no website 4. Previously running a lawn care business. In my opinion, this is not SIGCOV, although it does meet the other requirements to count towards notability. The other Wired article is SIGCOV, with about a dozen paragraphs devoted to Keen's background and activities. No other source even mentions Keen. Given the state of the sourcing here, the subject is not notable and additionally there is a real chance of getting biographical information wrong, so delete is the better option. All of the sources discuss Registered Agents Inc. I am not certain that we have CORPDEPTH for them, so I am a bit reluctant to keep the redirect, but it a better option than keeping an article with this sourcing. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would redirect and REVDEL satisfy your concern RE the state of sourcing/getting biographical information wrong? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:51, 13 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.

[1] Penny, Rachel (December 2008). "Fallout 3". Official UK PlayStation Magazine. No. 26. p. 54.

[2] "10 Ways to be a Complete Bastard in Fallout 3". PlayStation Magazine. No. 17. March 2009. p. 86.

[3] Porter, Will (October 2007). "Welcome to Vault 101". PC Zone. No. 185. pp. 44–9.

[4] "The 200 Greatest PlayStation Moments". Play. No. 200. January 2011. p. 29.

[5] "Places: Megaton". Edge. Christmas 2011. pp. 126–7.

[6] Cheng, William (2014). "A Time at the End of the World". Sound Play: Video Games and the Musical Imagination. Oxford University Press. p. 4252. ISBN 978-0-19-996997-5.

[7] Bissell, Tom (2011). "Fallout". Extra Lives: Why Video Games Mattter. Vintage Books. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-307-47431-5.

[8] Schrier, Karen; Gibson, David (2010). "Moral Sensitivity and Megaton in Fallout 3". Ethics and Game Design: Teaching Values Through Play. Information Science Reference. pp. 41–45. ISBN 978-1-61520-845-6.

[9] Wildt, Lars; Aupers, Stef; Krassen, Cindy; Coanda, Iulia (2018). "'Things Greater than Thou': Post-Apocalyptic Religion in Games". Religions. 9 (6): 169.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]