Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 17 April 19 >

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. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 13:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solitude (Black Sabbath song)

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

Non-notable song, fails WP:NSONG. Supplied sources include rateyourmusic which fails WP:USERG and is not allowed per WP:ALBUMAVOID. Another source is genius.com which is only considered marginally reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and cannot be used to establish notability. Two of the three genius.com sources are used to mention cover songs, neither of which passes the difficult requirements of WP:SONGCOVER. The Rolling Stone source is only saying that the song's album is notable, which is correct, but that fact does not make the song notable. Rolling Stone only mentions the song in the context of the album. The song page should be redirected to the album page: Master of Reality. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that another unreliable source has been added: secondhandsongs.com which also violates WP:USERG because anyone can log in and change the information. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    rateyourmusic has been removed. Aditional sources on the covers have been added on top of genius.com. Another source supporting the songs noteworthiness has been added from Loudwire. How about instead of trying to deleted the article, we all try to fix it. It's a B-side of a single, there's evidence supporting that on the article, and so is Fairies Wear Boots which is allowed to have an article, what makes this song any different? Diskyboy (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Master of Reality per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, because less information is better! This article has also been majorly improved as listed in the reply above. Diskyboy (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to reply every single comment disagreeing with you, particularly if you do it in a sarcastic and obnoxious way. @Diskyboy Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album per the reasons listed on the nomination Claire 26 (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, because less information is better! This article has also been majorly improved as listed in the reply above. Diskyboy (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album per nomination. Not enough reliable sources for it to be a standalone article. HarukaAmaranth 春香 02:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Master of Reality per reasons stated in the nomination. Changed my vote to Keep for reasons stated by Jfire below. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per significant coverage in the following reliable sources:
  • Stolz, Nolan (2017-11-08). Experiencing Black Sabbath: A Listener's Companion. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 31–32. ISBN 978-1-4422-5692-7. "Solitude" is a soft song that provides contrast, for it is placed between "Lord of This World" and "Into the Void" on the album. Geezer lightly drives the song while Tony provides light strumming on the guitar. Bill adds some very light finger cymbal work that is colored by a delay effect. Tony also plays flute on this track, an instrument he started to play after his time working in Jethro Tull. Although he had only been playing flute for a couple of years at most by this point, he sounds quite competent here, better than "amateurish" as he described it.' When the flute takes the melody at 4:00, its first phrase is like the first phrase in his guitar solo, a bit of cross-instrument self-quotation. The third and fourth phrases of the flute melody (4:24 and 4:34) are like Ozzy's vocal melodies. Starting at 1:40, there is an uncredited piano part. It sounds as if it's in reverse, but when played backward it's still not clear. Thus, it's probably not reversed but has reverse reverb, the same effect they used on the vocals for "Megalomania" on Sabotage four years later. Tony said he had not played piano before 1972, so it was likely engineer Tom Allom who played it. Tom, not credited at all on the album, has since taken credit for engineering duties on Master of Reality. Tom played piano on "Planet Caravan," and the parts are quite similar. Ozzy's voice is almost unrecognizable, as the timbre of his voice on this song is so different than how he usually sounds. His melodic apex comes at 3:04 and 3:28 ("the world is a lonely place" and "crying and thinking") when he alters the melody to go higher, yet he refrains from singing loudly.
  • Tony Iommi (2011). Iron man. Da Capo Press. p. 94. ISBN 978-0-306-81955-1. (This source is non-independent but has useful opinion from a band member.) We just weren't afraid to do something unexpected. Like 'Solitude', maybe the first love song we ever recorded. Ozzy had a delay on his voice, and he sang that quite nice. He has a really good voice for ballads. I'm playing the flute on that song as well. I tried all sorts of things in the course of doing albums, even though I couldn't play them, and after being with Jethro Tull for that short stint, I thought I might try the flute. I did it only to a very amateurish extent, I must admit. But I've still got that flute.
  • Darnielle, John (2008). Master of reality. New York : Continuum. pp. 77–79. ISBN 978-0-8264-2899-8. The tape was cued up to "Solitude," which is the song that people used to argue about for a lot of reasons. #1 was because the singer on it does not sound like Ozzy Osbourne. People said it was the drummer, Bill Ward, but I could never believe it. I guess I don't really know how records get made, but I've heard most of the Black Sabbath albums, and I think if Bill Ward could sing, he'd be on more than this one song. But again, it certainly doesn't sound like Ozzy, though. Here's the thing though: it also doesn't sound like Black Sabbath. It sounds like a folk song or a soundtrack to some Merlin story. It's only got two chords; there's a flute playing all through it. It's never really seemed to fit on the album for me, because it doesn't even sound like Black Sabbath at all, but that's exactly what makes it seem like it might be really important. You can tell yourself all sorts of stories about this song and all of them could be true...
  • Wilkinson, Paul (2007). Rat salad : Black Sabbath, the classic years 1969-1975. London : Pimlico. pp. 115–117. ISBN 978-1-84413-925-5. There are several striking points to be made about 'Solitude': that the song swings along in a most uncharacteristic 6/8 time is just the least of them. Although Sabbath had by this time explored time changes to a limited degree, the introduction to 'Behind The Wall Of Sleep* aside, they had thus far limited themselves to 4/4 or 8/8 arrangements. The fast waltz of 'Solitude' was thus quite a departure for them - particularly as they were enjoying the accolade of being the heaviest band in the world. lommi's blues-tinged soloing, which crops up periodically throughout the piece, is clearly a throwback to his pre-Sabbath influences, and it provides the perfect moody accompaniment to Osbourne's plaintive, echo-laden, chorus-inflected vocal.
  • McIver, Joel (2014). Sabbath bloody Sabbath. London Omnibus Press. ISBN 978-1-78305-517-3. A slippery bass melody finishes the song, before Geezer crops up again atop the mellow intro of 'Solitude'. Once again lommi steps off the gas, allowing a distant landscape of echoes to build up behind Ozzy's keening vocals - perhaps his best ever up to this point - and an unexpected flute that drones in the background. The vibe is very much of a Doors-like ethereal ambience, focused on the lyrics of rejection and loneliness ("T've not stopped crying since you went away") and a valuable breathing space in this intense album. The flute provides an almost jazzy interlude before the song spirals to a close.
As the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label, "Solitude" meets WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I change my vote to Keep now that you pointed out the sources go beyond trivial mentions and actually analyzes or goes into detail about the song. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see these sources talking about the song independently of the album. Everything here can be summarized at the album article. Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to WP:NSONG coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability? But these sources are not album reviews, they are histories of the band and detailed critical interpretation of individual songs. Of course the sources mention which song the album is from, and compare and contrast it with other tracks on the album. That's normal for critical interpretation of artistic works. A book review might make comparisons to the author's other works. A review of a TV episode may discuss its relation to prior or subsequent episodes or the series as a whole. None of these things mean that the coverage is ineligible for WP:GNG. The guideline even says that the subject with significant coverage does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Here we have multiple sources talking at length about the characteristics of this song. Wilkinson (2007) spends two full pages on this song specifically. Not the album, not other songs, "Solitude". It's a clear a WP:NSONG pass as I've ever seen. Jfire (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Fallout series#Post-War conditions. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 12:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mutant

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

Recent GAN, I declined it due to a lack of strong sourcing, with most of it being trivial mentions and sources not really discussing Super Mutants as a species. I've done a BEFORE and found very little beyond what's here, and after discussing it with the nominator, I've elected to send this to AfD to determine a consensus. Due to a lack of familiarity with Fallout, I'm not really sure as to a good AtD, but in any case, I don't believe this article currently meets Wikipedia's notability guideline. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, why would you delete it entirely. There's other WP:ATD option. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Fallout_(series). Multiple editors have suggested redirecting there, but the topic is not covered by that article. Flounder fillet (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention "not notable (qualifier)" demonstrates a poor understanding of notability. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References 2, 6, and 36 are sigcov independent RSes. Even if the notability was borderline here--and I argue that it's fine--this is a really well written fictional element article: exactly what we want to encourage people to write. The fact that it's been dragged to AfD is unfortunate and probably demoralizing. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference 2 is CBR, which does not factor into notability. Reference 6 is a listicle discussing one specific Super Mutant, not the species as a whole. Reference 36 does not actually offer any commentary, and instead is just coverage of one guy attempting to rationalize a retcon on Twitter. Normally I'd accept any one of these things in an article as support, or in 36's case, if there was commentary alongside it, but there's no real backbone or meat to the article beyond the one scholar source, which in and of itself barely discusses the Super Mutants. I agree that the writing quality overall is excellent, but the sourcing itself is rather bare and not meeting notability for a fictional element independently from its source material. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those source assessments are correct. CBR is RS for fictional topics. Reference 6 is all about a specific super mutant, so discusses the topic of super mutants (e.g. comparing memory of one super mutant to the species as a whole) in depth, and 36 is RS coverage of a twitter discussion--this happens all the time. Mind you, I skimmed the list and searched five that looked promising before settling on these three, so there's probably plenty more adequate coverage there. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:VALNET: "In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability outside of periods they were considered reliable or prior to being purchased by Valnet, due to concerns over undue weight and content farming." Personally, I feel the assessment is a bit harsh, but I do recognize that if we're going strictly off of policy, CBR is a source that, while adequate, does not provide weight in this discussion towards notability. As for Ref 6, while TheGamer is reliable, it is one of their pure listicle articles, and only focuses on one individual. Lily is a very separate individual from the concept of Super Mutants as a whole, and thus the source acts as coverage discussing Lily, not Super Mutants. I will also note that this source is practically all plot summary about Lily; there's very little commentary, if at all. I can see the argument for the Eurogamer source, but even then the commentary is less so about the Mutants and more about the retcons involving them. There's little actual commentary on their character here, and thus does not contribute much to actual discussion of them. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fallout (series)#Post-War conditions or similar. I think Pokelego's analysis is fair; if better sources come up at any point, please ping me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fallout (series)#Post-War conditions per nomination. There aren't a lot of RSes here, and none of these sources suggest independent notability for this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fallout (series) with no prejudice towards recreation if sufficient SIGCOV is found. This is a topic that could be notable at some point, sources may even exist, but right now there is a serious lack of significant coverage demonstrated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Fallout (series)#Post-War conditions doesn't even mention them. It definitely should, but it would be what, a few sentences? Merge is an option, but a new article about the world of the series should be created for that. While there was no Super Mutants in TV series, yet, I think it's just a matter of time. Interesting how articles which notability *rises* are so often nominated. Mithoron (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Bit surprised to hear that they don't show up in the TV series, but I don't think that saying that they certainly will in the future really gives any weight to keeping this article as a stand-alone now. It will probably be quite a bit of time before that second season is released, and guessing that they probably will be introduced and probably will have coverage then is more or less a WP:CRYSTAL statement. As Zxcvbnm pointed out, if and when more coverage becomes available, there is no prejudice against splitting it back out as an independent article then. Rorshacma (talk) 16:47, 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 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 23:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okuhle Siyeni

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The most I found was a few sentences of coverage here in a larger story about South African high schools "poaching" rugby players. JTtheOG (talk) 22:19, 18 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 23:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo George

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

George played in the semi-professional USL League Two at club level. For a player who made two international appearances for his country and started his club career in internet times, you might expect to come across WP:SIGCOV through a web search but I did not find anything close. He therefore fails WP:GNG. (Oh, by the way: the article was previously deleted after its first AfD.) Robby.is.on (talk) 21:54, 18 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) ToadetteEdit! 12:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optoma Corporation

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

Sources are largely thinly-disguised press releases with no real evidence of notability per WP:NORG. Previously deleted and salted as Optoma * Pppery * it has begun... 17:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Huang, Hanhua 黃漢華 (2011-05-30). "奧圖碼 8年攻下世界8％" [Optoma conquered 8% of the world in 8 years]. Global Views Monthly [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Optoma is a company established in 2002 by Zhongqiang Optoelectronics, which is engaged in projector OEM. Among Japanese brands, which account for almost 90% of the global projector market, they have captured 8% of the world's market share in the past eight years, second only to the century-old Japanese brand EPSON. This Taiwanese projector brand that did not exist eight years ago is already the second largest in the world."

    2. Zhang, Yigong 張義宮 (2007-01-13). "奧圖碼 高階投影機競豔" [Optoma high-end projectors compete]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. B4.

      The article notes: "中光電（5371）旗下奧圖碼以「Optoma」自有品牌在CES推出高階投影機，今年以自牌投影機在全球銷售量可達60萬台，坐穩全球第四大、美國市場第二大，將以720p與1080p普及、高階機種來打開全球市場。"

      From Google Translate: "Optoma, a subsidiary of China Optoelectronics (5371), launched high-end projectors at CES under its own brand "Optoma". This year, global sales of its own-brand projectors reached 600,000 units, ranking fourth in the world and second in the U.S. market. It will compete in the global market with popular and high-end models of 720p and 1080p."

    3. Zhang, Yigong 張義宮 (2007-10-16). "奧圖碼 搶攻DLP投影機市場" [Optoma seizes DLP projector market]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. C7.

      The article notes: "全球最大DLP投影機品牌的奧圖碼科技（3565），與德儀（TI）挺進中小企業DLP投影機市場，昨（15）日發表五款普及型至高階的商用機種，擴大在台灣商用市場占有率至20%以上；奧圖碼（Optoma）自有品牌的DLP投影機市占今年蟬聯全球及台灣第一，"

      From Google Translate: "Optoma Technology (3565), the world's largest DLP projector brand, and TI have entered the DLP projector market for small and medium-sized enterprises. Yesterday (15th), they released five popular to high-end commercial models, expanding their commercial use in Taiwan The market share has reached more than 20%; Optoma's own-brand DLP projector has ranked first in the world and in Taiwan this year."

    4. Zhang, Yigong 張義宮 (2007-07-12). "登錄興櫃 首日漲86% 奧圖碼品牌投影機 坐穩全球二哥" [Login to open counter. Rose 86% on the first day. Optoma projector brand firmly occupies the second position in the world]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. C3.

      The article notes: "全球第二大投影機品牌的奧圖碼科技（3565）昨（11）日首日登錄興櫃的均價以98.16元收盤，開出好彩頭。今年奧圖碼以「Optoma」自有品牌目標在全球市場賣出50萬台，坐穩全球第二大，在DLP投影機的機種則位居全球第一；其母公司中光電（5371）則是全球DLP投影機最大的OEM╱ODM代工廠，今年出貨量將成長逾二成、達80萬台新高。"

      From Google Translate: "Optoma Technology (3565), the world's second largest projector brand, closed at an average price of 98.16 yuan on its first day of trading yesterday (11th), a good start. This year, Optoma aims to sell 500,000 units of its own brand "Optoma" in the global market, ranking second in the world. It ranks first in the world in DLP projector models; its parent company China Optoelectronics (5371) It is the largest OEM/ODM factory of DLP projectors in the world, and its shipments this year will increase by more than 20%, reaching a new high of 800,000 units."

    5. Luo, Xiuwen 羅秀文 (2007-07-11). "奧圖碼 風光上興櫃" [Optoma Scenery and cabinet]. United Evening News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 19.

      The article notes: "奧圖碼科技實收資本額6.09億元，董事長為李有田，主要產品為投影機及影像處理器。主要法人大股東為中強光電，持股比率52.74%。 ... 奧圖碼去年投影機出貨量為35萬2166台，較前年的逾17萬台成長102.4%。"

      From Google Translate: "Optoma Technology has a paid-in capital of 609 million yuan. Its chairman is Li Youtian. Its main products are projectors and image processors. The main legal person shareholder is Zhongqiang Optoelectronics, with a shareholding ratio of 52.74%. ... Optoma's projector shipments last year were 352,166 units, an increase of 102.4% from more than 170,000 units the previous year."

    6. Xiao, Junhui 蕭君暉 (2015-09-03). "投影機Q2出貨 奧圖碼第四名" [Projector shipments in Q2, Optoma ranks fourth]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. C4.

      The article notes: "IDC昨（2）日公布第2季台灣前五大投影機廠商出貨量排名，依序為愛普生、NEC、佳世達（2352）旗下明基、中光電旗下奧圖碼，以及台達電旗下的麗訊。"

      From Google Translate: "IDC announced yesterday (2) the ranking of the top five projector manufacturers in Taiwan in terms of shipments in the second quarter. In order, they are Epson, NEC, BenQ of Qisda (2352), Optoma of China Optoelectronics, and Delta Electronics."

    7. Qi, Anguo 祁安國 (2005-09-03). "變身大廚 跆拳道高手 大力士…… Optoma郭特利 百變總經理" [Transform into a chef, a Taekwondo master, a strongman... Optoma's Guo Teli, ever-changing general manager]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). p. A10.

      The article notes: "Optoma這個品牌是3C業界的「菜鳥」，由原來叫志紅科技，郭特利接掌後改中文為「奧圖碼」，不到兩年成為國內投影機第一品牌，讓投影機大廠Epson、BenQ也不得不視為「可敬的對手」。"

      From Google Translate: "The Optoma brand is a "rookie" in the 3C industry. It was originally called Zhihong Technology. After Guo Teli took over, the Chinese name was changed to "Optoma". In less than two years, it became the number one projector brand in the country, leaving major projector manufacturers behind. Epson and BenQ have to be regarded as "respectable opponents"."

    8. PCMag reviews:
      1. Stone, M. David (2024-02-07). "Optoma UHZ35ST Review: A projector for your home and beyond". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "No built-in streaming apps or bundled dongle. Shows frequent rainbow artifacts. Image quality for HDR isn't as good as for SDR. Pricey for what it delivers."

      2. Stone, M. David (2022-08-22). "Optoma UHD55 Review: All colors and no lag make a brilliant 4K projector". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Only one of the two HDMI ports offers the short input lag. Limited number of streaming apps"

      3. Stone, M. David (2021-12-08). "Optoma CinemaX P2 Review: More hits than misses on this 4K ultra-short-throw projector". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Integrated streaming is better ignored in favor of an HDMI dongle (which demands a second remote). Only two of three HDMI ports support 4K with HDR. More prone to rainbow artifacts than most UST DLP projectors."

      4. Stone, M. David (2020-11-06). "Optoma GT1080HDR Review: Space-strapped? This short-throw projector pushes a bright, colorful image". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "No support for HLG, the emerging HDR standard for broadcast TV. Remote often jumps two menu spots with one button-press. No carry case."

      5. Stone, M. David (2021-07-08). "Optoma UHD35 Review: Flexible and relatively inexpensive 4K". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Black level is too high on default settings. Default settings leave some colors a little too dark or unsaturated. Optical zoom is only 1.1x."

      6. Stone, M. David (2020-09-29). "Optoma HD39HDR Review: An ambient-light ace". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "With default settings, some hues are noticeably off for both SDR and HDR content. High brightness works well in ambient light, but means disappointing blacks and three-dimensionality in dark rooms."

      7. Stone, M. David (2021-02-02). "Optoma HD28HDR Review: A bright projector for movie night on the couch". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Black level not ideal for dark rooms. Dark scenes look better in 1080p SDR than downgraded 4K HDR."

      8. Stone, M. David (2021-02-17). "Optoma HD146X Review: A capable projector for cinephiles on a budget". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Only one HDMI port; USB port is only for power out. Onboard audio is poor. Lacks image shift for setup."

      9. Stone, M. David (2022-08-22). "Optoma UHD55 Review: All colors and no lag make a brilliant 4K projector". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Only one of the two HDMI ports offers the short input lag. Limited number of streaming apps"

      10. Stone, M. David (2015-11-17). "Optoma HD28DSE Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Shows rainbow artifacts in video testing."

      11. Stone, M. David (2015-11-18). "Optoma EH320USTi Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Poor instructions. Interactive feature is more difficult to set up than with competing projectors."

      12. Stone, M. David (2014-11-10). "Optoma HD141X Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Serious image quality problems with some source material at the brightest setting. Shows rainbow artifacts."

      13. Stone, M. David (2014-01-21). "Optoma GT760 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Native resolution is lower than today's latest gaming systems offer."

      14. Stone, M. David (2015-03-30). "Optoma HD161X Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Shows rainbow artifacts, primarily in black-and-white film clips. Long lag time."

      15. Hoffman, Tony (2013-09-12). "Optoma ZW212ST Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Rainbow effect in video. Relatively weak audio."

      16. Stone, M. David (2014-11-17). "Optoma HD26 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Shows rainbow artifacts, particularly in black-and-white film clips. Has additional image-quality issues in its brightest predefined mode."

      17. Stone, M. David (2013-11-21). "Optoma X401 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Obvious rainbow artifacts in video make it suitable for short video clips only."

      18. Stone, M. David (2013-11-22). "Optoma W401 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Obvious rainbow artifacts in video make it suitable for short video clips only."

      19. Hoffman, Tony (2012-03-30). "Optoma Pico PK120 Pocket Projector Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "No remote. Primitive menu system. Weak audio. Very modest brightness."

      20. Stone, M. David (2013-11-22). "Optoma X306ST Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Rainbow effect in video more severe than is usual. No port for USB thumb drive."

      21. Stone, M. David (2015-01-20). "Optoma GT1080 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Displays rainbow artifacts. Shows posterization in its brightest mode."

      22. Hoffman, Tony (2013-11-22). "Optoma W306ST Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Sub-par video, largely due to rainbow effect. Lacks port for USB thumb drive."

      23. Stone, M. David (2015-09-14). "Optoma HD37 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Shows rainbow artifacts, primarily in black and white film clips."

      24. Stone, M. David (2015-10-15). "Optoma EH341 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Shows rainbow artifacts, primarily in black-and-white film clips."

      25. Hoffman, Tony (2013-05-31). "Optoma ZX212ST Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Low brightness by today's standards. 3D support limited to PC connection (VGA or HDMI) only."

      26. Hoffman, Tony (2013-08-09). "Optoma S303 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Sub-par video. Rainbow effect."

      27. Gideon, Tim (2015-11-05). "Optoma NuForce Primo8 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Not for bass lovers. Expensive."

      28. Stone, M. David (2011-10-05). "Optoma DP-MW9080A Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Screen material gives off strong chemical odor when new."

      29. Hoffman, Tony (2013-08-16). "Optoma W303 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Sub-par video. Rainbow effect. Very soft audio."

      30. Stone, M. David (2014-05-06). "Optoma ML1000P Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Touchpad controls are hard to use. Showed scaling artifacts (unwanted patterns added to some screens) at its native resolution in our tests."

      31. Stone, M. David (2013-08-29). "Optoma X304M Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Video is suitable for only short clips. Obvious rainbow artifacts in video."

      32. Stone, M. David (2013-08-29). "Optoma W304M Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Tendency to show rainbow artifacts makes video suitable for short clips only. Underpowered audio."

    9. TechRadar reviews:
      1. Carter, Jamie (2021-11-11). "Optoma UHD38 4K projector review: Supersized images that are great for gamers". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Long-throw lens. Some light leakage in a blackout. Average black levels. Fiddly remote."

      2. Carter, Jamie (2021-07-15). "Optoma UHD30 4K projector review: Supersized 4K projection for day or night". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Requires a large room. Greenish 'bright' mode. Poor built-in speaker."

      3. May, Steve (2020-11-09). "Optoma CinemaX P2 4K projector review: Optoma drops the price, but keeps the good stuff". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Less bright than its predecessor. Doesn't support HLG HDR over HDMI. Smart app choice limited."

      4. Dawson, Stephen (2020-07-26). "Optoma UHD50X review: A powerhouse projector aimed squarely at gaming". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "60Hz judder with PAL content. Poor 50Hz de-interlacing. Unevenness in brightness."

      5. Laird, Jeremy (2020-02-24). "Optoma ZK507 review: Optoma's new 4K laser projector packs a serious punch for presentations and video". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Somewhat limited colour fidelity. Manual lens control. Expensive."

      6. Archer, John (2020-03-21). "Optoma UHD52ALV review: The Optoma UHD52ALV shows that projectors are finally getting smart". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Black levels merely average. Peak HDR color issues. Audio glitches. Gaming lag."

      7. St Leger, Henry (2018-12-13). "Optoma HD31UST projector review: Ultra short-throw projection for the home". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Blooming around flames and bright light sources. Can't cut down size of projection."

      8. Lynch, Gerald (2018-11-08). "Optoma UHD51A 4K projector with Alexa review: 'Hey Alexa, bring the cinema home'". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Alexa features add little. No digital keystone. Alexa set up issues."

      9. de Looper, Christian (2020-05-26). "Optoma CinemaX P1 review: It isn't cheap, but this short-throw 4K projector is worth the money". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Sub-par built-in OS. Limited to HD streaming."

      10. Carter, Jamie (2018-05-11). "Optoma UHZ65 4K Laser Projector review: Is a laser light engine really worth spending extra on?". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Huge price tag. No quiet speaker option. Average contrast & black levels. No auto-focus or zoom."

      11. Carter, Jamie (2017-11-21). "Optoma HD142X Projector review: Copious amounts of brightness and contrast make this a great value beamer". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Basic mono speaker. Rainbow effect. Uninspired design. Rudimentary remote control."

      12. Carter, Jamie (2018-11-15). "Optoma UHL55 review: A hands-free home cinema that excels with 4K content". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "HD sources look poor. Black levels not the best. No protective case."

      13. Laird, Jeremy (2020-03-02). "Optoma LH200 review: A robust anywhere, anyplace, anytime projection solution". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Fixed optics. Adequate image quality. Limited battery life."

      14. Carter, Jamie (2018-05-04). "Optoma HD27e Full HD Projector review: Who needs 4K when Full HD can be this much fun?". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Not exceptionally bright. Some motion blur. 1.1x zoom. Limited to HDMI."

      15. Carter, Jamie (2015-09-01). "Optoma HD36 projector review: Super-bright and with best-in-class speakers, this versatile Full HD DLP impresses". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Only one HDMI. Big size. Loud fan noise. Fiddly focus ring. Optional 3D & wireless."

      16. May, Steve (2018-02-14). "Optoma HD39Darbee Special Edition Full HD projector review: An all-round crowd-pleaser". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Black level is inevitably limited. Operating noise is high in full brightness mode."

      17. Browne, Michael (2010-04-30). "Optoma EW330 review: Can a projector designed for life on the road still offer good image quality?". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Not for use in larger rooms. Gets loud."

      18. Pino, Nick (2014-10-17). "Optoma GT1080 review: A gaming projector with a good short game, but lacking in fundamentals". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Super short range. Excessive heat and noise. Imperfect audio. Poor daytime performance."

      19. Archer, John (2018-07-03). "Optoma UHD60 projector review: It rewrote the 4K HDR projector rule book". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Flimsy top panel. Limited HDR effect. Occasional HDR colour flaw. Slightly high input lag."

    10. Additional reviews:
      1. Das, Mehul Reuben (2024-01-15). "Optoma UHZ50+ Laser 4K Projector Review: A solid projector with pro gaming features, stunning visuals". Firstpost. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes: "Cons - In-built speakers are a letdown - Limited vertical shift, no horizontal shift - Zoom and shift functions aren’t motorised."

      2. Dent, Steve (2020-02-26). "Optoma CinemaX P1 review: A stunning 4K projector with terrible apps. Just get a 4K Chromecast or Amazon Fire Stick for it". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes: "Optoma is known for building affordable projectors, so the $3,700 CinemaX P1 might not seem that cheap. ... And while this projector doesn't deliver the picture quality of more costly native 4K long-throw projectors from JVC and Sony, it's brighter than many of those models.Yes, the streaming apps are terrible, but a $70 Chromecast or $40 Amazon Fire Stick solves that problem."

      3. Woodard, Nick (2021-08-26). "Optoma HD39HDR Review: A super bright projector on a budget". IGN. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes: "If you’re purely a gamer that won’t use a projector for anything else, it might make sense to save a few more bucks and wait to invest in a product like the BenQ X1300i or the Optoma UHD38. But if you stream as much as you game, the HD39HDR is a no-brainer at this price. The sheer brightness, ease of setup and use, and exceptional picture quality of the HD39HDR easily outweigh issues like sound quality and unimpressive connections."

      4. Nystedt, Brendan (2018-03-23). "Review: Optoma UHD60 Projector: Got a 4K source you're itching to throw against the wall?". Wired. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The cons summary notes: "It's bigger than you expect. Rainbow effect may or may not impact your viewing experience. Not true pixel-perfect 4K resolution, but good enough. Only one HDMI port supports HDMI 2.2. Remote backlighting is blinding. No keystone correction. Can't they make one in matte black?"

      5. Hall, Parker (2020-07-22). "Review: Optoma UHD50X: The company's latest consumer projector looks better than ever and even offers a 240-Hz refresh rate for PC gamers". Wired. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The cons summary notes: "Requires a dark room, projector screen, and sound system with HDMI pass-through. No high refresh rates for consoles. No G-Sync or FreeSync support."

      6. Hunt, Kevin (2005-12-09). "Projector's Hi-Def Picture Puts Plasma to Shame". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13 – via Newspapers.com.

        The review notes: "Optoma sells a virtually identical projector, the H79, for $10,000 whose only apparent difference is hand-picked optics, deemed the best. ... The Optoma is among the quietest projectors, producing only 25 decibels in standard mode. ... Some analog cable channels look like a snowy mush with the Optoma."

      7. Patterson, Ben (2009-07-31). "25 Best Back-to-School Gadgets: Optoma PK-101 Pico projector". Time. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The article notes: "Just slip Optoma's Pico projector out of your pocket and turn that blank wall in the lounge into an instant movie screen. About the size of a cell phone, the 4-oz. (113 g) PK-101 can project an image up to 60 in. (150 cm) in diameter, at a reasonably sharp (if far short of HD) resolution of 480 pixels by 320 pixels, and it even has a tiny built-in speaker."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Optoma (traditional Chinese: 奧圖碼; simplified Chinese: 奥图码) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are an awful lot of sources included in this discussion, some of which are in off-line sources, and a lot of them are product reviews but it would help to have an editor or two weigh in about whether they can help establish WP:NORG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Coretronic: its parent company. There is no company called "Optoma Corporation" There's one called "Optoma Technology", doing business as Optoma. "Optoma Corporation" is a fiction created by a sneaky editor trying to get around a salted page. The REFBOMBed sources shown here mostly cover the company's products. I did not go over all of them to see if there are three decent SIGCOV ones in there. If there were, I'm guessing we wouldn't be flooded with over 60 low-quality refs. Owen× ☎ 21:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • My position is that the projector brand Optoma is notable through significant coverage in Taiwanese publications as well as numerous product reviews. I linked to 58 product reviews to show that the brand is notable, not to "REFBOMB". There was a recent discussion about using product reviews to establish notability for the company at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Notability of products vis a vis notability of the corporation. I will mention the AfD there. Three editors separately wrote:
      1. "That said, if there are several products by a company, and those products have received sufficient significant coverage such that they are notable as a group or notable independently, I think an article about the company that is effectively a list of those items would meet WP:NLIST."
      2. "I think that your rationale argues for bundling of product articles, not for having an article on the company. That said, if there is GNG coverage of the products, and at least near-GNG coverage on the company, IMPO it would be within the norms in this area (albeit not explicitly supported by the guidelines) to have an article on the company if it is the place that the products are covered."
      3. "I would generally say that the purposes of the encyclopedia are better served by bundling notable products under their manufacturer, and treating the notability of the products as the notability of the company that makes them. This would only apply for products that are, in fact, notable, and discretely made by a single manufacturer."
      Sources published in 2007 and 2011 said the Optoma brand was the second largest projector brand by market share in the world, behind Epson. This strongly contributes to notability.

      Cunard (talk) 09:24, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 03:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Estonia

[edit]
Sports broadcasting contracts in Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Estonia. BrigadierG (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Don't see any reason for deleting these articles. There is encyclopedic value to them. Also WP:NOTTVGUIDE doesn't even cover these pages, at all. "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events" these articles aren't articles on broadcasters, they are articles on the rights/contracts. The rule, to me at least, seems to be there to avoid actual tv guides as in "on this channel, this show is on monday at 8, this at 9..." etc. which is entirely different. Keep the pages around, if some of the country pages lack references then tag the pages for that and move along. For this page literally every entry has a reference so I see absolutely no reason for even trying to delete this. Shadess (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > There is encyclopedic value to them
    WP:BELONG
    > every entry has a reference
    WP:LOTSOFSOURCES
    The bar here is showing that there is reliable, in-depth coverage from multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. There is not a single secondary source on this article, every single one is based on a press release and involves no secondary coverage or discussion. Further more, there are no sources that satisfy WP:NLIST - every source trivially covers some specific contract, and none of them discuss the sector of broadcasting rights in Estonia as a whole. BrigadierG (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bar here is for you to also show why these should be deleted and not just tagged for improving/adding references. I'll say it again, WP:NOTTVGUIDE that you cite as a reason doesn't even cover these pages. Could you address that?Shadess (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      > The bar here is for you to also show why these should be deleted and not just tagged for improving/adding references
      No it isn't - WP:ONUS. Articles are only kept if they meet either WP:GNG or one of the subject-specific notability standards underneath it, such as WP:NLIST. I can't see there's even a single source that satisfies the notability requirements set up under WP:GNG, so that's my reason for deleting it. And for the avoidance of doubt, the criteria for those sources are the last 4 bullet points of WP:SIGCOV. The issue you're gonna run into is WP:SECONDARY and WP:NLIST requiring discussion of the group as a whole, and not just individual members. BrigadierG (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:41, 11 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! 21:44, 18 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. No P&G-based deletion argument brought up. The page does not qualify for speedy deletion under G11, and WP:TNT is not a deletion guideline, but an essay about editorial preferences. If the subject is notable but the tone is promotional, the page can be edited, perhaps from scratch. BLP violations, if any, can be removed, by selective REVDEL, if needed. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Jansson (photographer)

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

Reason: "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content" that has no foot notes and resume like contents. WP:TNT. There's been no substantial edits besides the name drops I've removed and content additions by model management company associated WP:SPA. Graywalls (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Also qualifies for deletion per reason Deletion policy reason #1 "Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion" "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion" While WP:ATD should be considered, the burden to clean up after promotional article created by public relations effort to promote shouldn't fall on volunteer editors. Graywalls (talk) 15:48, 5 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) 18:51, 11 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! 21:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:TNT it, unless someone pulls a WP:HEY on it first. the burden to clean up after promotional article created by public relations effort to promote shouldn't fall on volunteer editors is right. -- asilvering (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd support either TNT or !draft, but I can only find the Wall Street Journal article, we'd need a few more sources about him to pass notability. This is very PROMO and badly needs a re-write. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it appears to meet G11, I think deletion reason is satisfied. Notability failure is not the only reason for deletion. I thought of draftifying, but last time I did that, it got undraftified by Liz. Graywalls (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft: Not promotional enough for G11, but meets notability due to WSJ article, other articles in Vogue and fashion/photography magazines. Cleo Cooper (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scroggins Draw, Texas

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

This article seems to fail WP:NPLACE given almost no information beyond statistics and coordinates is mentioned. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per this source,

    Scoggins Draw, you should know, is not the name of a town. It’s the name of a valley. And there is no town in the valley of Scroggins Draw. There is no … anything in Scroggins Draw.

    That's the most comprehensive bit of information I could find. Per topographic maps, it's a dry wash in the desert, not a populated place and certainly not a "community" as the county template says. Therefore, the article is a falsehood. Yes, it's the point where two interstates meet. But that's not a community or populated place, and unless there's something particularly special about this desert interchange, the article needs to be deleted as a failure of WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's the name of a valley, not a settled place, and the article has never claimed to be about a settled place, so WP:GEOLAND/WP:NPLACE doesn't have anything to do with this article. WierdNAnnoyed's article mentioned above also helps establish its notability as a WP:GEONATURAL location. Its primary usage appears to be to be as the location of the western terminus of Interstate 20 in my searches, and appears as such in the first sentence of the Interstate 20 article, among other things. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article includes included the Template:Reeves County, Texas template, which called the place a community, which is obviously wrong, which may have led to the confusion above. I've removed that entry from that template and removed that template from the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean having exactly one notable thing about it does not really satisfy WP:GEONATURAL either, let alone WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if it's a valley and not a town, we need more than just a name to justify an article. I don't see any sources of substance, even with the lower bar of GeoNatural. Reywas92Talk 02:48, 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! 19:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:GEONATURAL which states a named natural feature could be notable "provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist" and "The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article" This article is virtually just stating coordinates and nothing else. AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to the I20 article The argument that this shouldn't be kept is a slam dunk, but it seems more sensible to redirect itJames.folsom (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
James.folsom, can you provide a link to the "I20 article"? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still would like to see a link to this "I20 article" mentioned in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 18 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ağa hamamı

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, as I pointed out at the talk page a while ago. The only source used here is the hammam's own commercial website, which is not a reliable source. It also makes the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that the hammam was built in 1454, the same year of the Ottoman conquest of the city, which would make it one of the oldest Ottoman buildings in the city, if not the oldest. This has no support in actual reliable sources, which make no mention of this (e.g. see references at Tahtakale Hamam, which discuss the oldest hammams and other known Ottoman structures from this era). Judging by the choice of source and by the page creator, I'm also starting to suspect this was a WP:COI. R Prazeres (talk) 16:34, 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! 19:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: if anyone is looking up Ağa hamamı in sources, keep in mind that there is at least one other "Ağa hamamı" (or "Aga Hamam" etc) in the Samatya neighbourhood of Istanbul and there may be other hammams with the same name elsewhere. R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The Kapıağası Yakup Ağa Hamamı, often just known as Ağa Hamamı. And that one is far more notable and appears in guidebooks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: I think the comment below was to check explicitly if you support keeping or deleting? Or no opinion? R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I didn't express an opinion one way or the other. I merely commented. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What outcome would you like to see happen?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Covered by timeout, stating "built in 1454 by Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror and was used privately by the Sultan and his male heirs." Clearly is a significant term of use. This in turn points that the place has some strong historical context. You would have thought with that, this should have plenty of WP:OFFLINE sources. Lonelyplanet snippet, cityseeker snippet. arnoldreview? Covered by [2]. Obviously it needs better sourcing, but due to the little coverage there is, which shows it's historical age and aspect shows there should be plenty more sources out there that should be able to use. Unless it's all bullshit history trying to get people through the door. Well, that's possible, but that really requires a different kind of investigation. For now, I am on the little of what google provides. Govvy (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SIGCOV requires that a topic "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This isn't the case here. Of course a business can be found in blogs and review sites, like those you've linked; my local pizza restaurant would fit that criteria too, but that doesn't make it WP:NOTABLE. The last link you provided ([3]) is also not the same place, it's the Samatya hammam mentioned above.
    As mentioned, the historical claim has no support in RS. Even the normally quite thorough Turkish Islam Ansiklopedisi has nothing about it. Whether the claim is deliberate bullshit I won't say, but it certainly doesn't satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY. R Prazeres (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see, the claim made in the article is false. Turkish Airlines has covered some hamams of Istanbul, and notes that the building itself was indeed built in 1454 as a hunting house. However, it only became a hamam after 1923. So that would perhaps make it the oldest building that has a hamam in it, but not the oldest operational hamam in the city. Basically some smart wording/PR trick coming from the website of the business that runs it to label this as the oldest, which we have taken over directly without elaboration because.... the creator of this article is likely the owner himself. Sources published post-2014 (i.e. since the creation of this article) paraphrase about the same 3 sentences found in the Turkish Airlines blog, so I won't bother to list them here.
So I looked for sources before that date, and the only thing that came up was a book from 2010 on Istanbul hamams by the municipality (which I would consider to be much more reliable than any source mentioned above). There are 2 hamams in the book named "Ağa Hamamı", ours is located on page 41, easily identifiable as the book mentions the street its located on. This book gives a completely different history: it was built in 1562—already a hamam—and the income was used to fund the Fenerbahçe Lighthouse. Both the inside and outside have been renovated several times and there is nothing "historic" about the building anymore. The book also says that the building is described in the Istanbul Encyclopedia of Reşad Ekrem Koçu. I'd say that the building is notable, but not the business itself. Since our article currently only serves the latter with incorrect information, I don't think this can stay without a TNT. So yeah, delete unless anyone wants to clean this up. Styyx (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all this great research (that 2010 book is a nice find). I just want to add: even a claim about the building itself being a hunting lodge built in 1454 is undoubtedly wrong, and a Turkish Airlines blog wouldn't count as reliable source for that either. R Prazeres (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found the Istanbul Encyclopedia on archive.org. Volume 1, pages 241–243 are about this hamam, if anyone wants to use it. It indeed notes that it's a 16th-century building, so I think this confirms that the story in the article is fully made up. Styyx (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Steinberg

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

Was trying to fix an orphan article, but I came to the conclusion that she just doesn't pass our criteria for notability. There are some sources, including Brightside.com (fails WP:RS) and The Fashion Model Directory (user input, like IMDB, so fails WP:RS for V/N) and she won an award from Models.com (not notable company, not notable award, was "people's choice", a popularity vote, not a vote of industry people). Looked around the web and I see lots of social media. Even in the unreliable sources, she barely gets a mention, and utterly no significant coverage. Yes, she is a model, yes, she has had some good gigs (but can't verify them) but no independent or reliable sig/cov at all. At the end of the day, she fails to clear the low bar of WP:GNG, the gold standard for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last AfD covered this and was just a month ago? Right? FortunateSons (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see that until after I created this AFD, and I spot checked a couple of the sources only that were given, and unimpressed by the sig/cov and WP:RS, so I decided to let it play out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Did you check the Russian articles as well? FortunateSons (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural keep. Has just been kept after a comprehensive debate. If we would delete it now, this would be a classroom example of FORUMSHOPPING. gidonb (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. I can't find anything more than database like IMDb, Getty images, Shutterstock photos, Famous Birthday, and more. Problem of context ad SIGCOV. Looking the the article again, there may be chance of being notable in the future but in the status quo, No!!!. Trying WP:THREE, I can't find any too! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there any more support for Draftifying? It just seems odd to close the 1st AFD as Keep one month and then Delete in the 2nd AFD one more later after editors found new sourcing during the last AFD that might not have been added to the article yet. But this AFD can be closed if another closer sees a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a draft, if others find sources that I didn't consider or see them differently than I do, that's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy: My first deletion vote attributed that the subject may be notable in the future. After much thought and the relist comment by Liz, I thought of giving a chance too. Dratification should work well here.
  • Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT; sources are in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to JSDelivr. ✗plicit 13:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BootstrapCDN

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

Non-notable content delivery network. All references in article are primary sources published by the company and I couldn't find any sources to satisfy WP:GNG elsewhere. Might be worth a brief mention at Jsdelivr at the very most. ~Liancetalk 20:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think you meant to suggest JSDelivr as a Redirect target as the page you refer to is, itself, a redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Jsdelivr - It's definitely not a keep. Per nom., no secondary sources. My hesitation was whether it should be delete or redirect. The problem with redirect, as per Xeroctic, is that the redirect target may itself not be notable. However, on balance that ATD is okay. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:44, 18 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. No P&G-based arguments brought up by the Keep participants. Owen× ☎ 14:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in South America

[edit]
Sports broadcasting contracts in South America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason below:

Sports broadcasting contracts in Central America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sports broadcasting contracts in Middle East & North Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the sources are announcements or are primary and does not assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE covers this explicitly BrigadierG (talk) 12:48, 28 March 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) 12:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At least keep the South America article, which is more updated. These articles help out of country viewers information about sports rights in their countries, and as such they serve a reference function worthy of encyclopedic value. The majority are good articles with good independent references and should not be considered for deletion. These lists are not TV guides--Claudio Fernag (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VALUABLE applies. Useful to you but it doesn't mean it should belong on Wikipedia. Is it sourced though? Does it have a reliable third party source that is not news announcements? SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:54, 6 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! 20:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, hoping for a little more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Eidel

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

No evidence of notability in the article or through searching for sources. The only citation in the article is about his death, which isn't notable. He was nominated for a grammy but didn't win. InDimensional (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Subject hardly meets WP:GNG as none of the sources dig deep. Of course, not any Grammy nom deserves a standalone article. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of solar eclipses in the 19th century. ✗plicit 05:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of February 11, 1804

[edit]
Solar eclipse of February 11, 1804 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Eclipse is not historic and has no references but a NASA database page. There are also no references or sources to be found for this article and it has attracted zero media attention. Though the idea of a zero-second eclipse is nice and all, there's really no evidence for this article's notability and by WP:NOTDATABASE it should probably just be redirected to List of solar eclipses in the 19th century. I also think it would be good to look through other historic eclipse articles that may not be notable and consider redirecting those as well, but that's a topic for another discussion. Thank you! Poxy4 (talk) 21:56, 11 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! 21:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm somewhat neutral on this one. Based on the path of totality it was certainly observed in eastern European cities and other locations, even though there were no published journal articles on expeditions. There are a couple of boilerplate web sites on the event, but it isn't showing up in any books. I'd say it is of questionable notability, so no objection to turning it into a redirect or just keeping it. Praemonitus (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 19th century as per InTheAstronomy32. Samoht27 (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 23:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón Mendezona Roldán

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

I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable. Agree with nominator. After I tagged it for sourcing earlier I watchlisted it. I thought about PRODDING but I certainly support deletion. Nirva20 (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 23:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pressurecooker

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

Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 20:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seems to be zero coverage in independent reliable sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:32, 18 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 23:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon DeShazer

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

Unref BLP currently, so I looked for sources, but couldn't find evidence he is notable or a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 20:55, 18 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 23:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NHL Entry Draft broadcasters

[edit]
List of NHL Entry Draft broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:BEFORE search reveals WP:PRIMARY and WP:ROUTINE mentions as the sourcing, thus failing WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Ice hockey and list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Conyo14 (talk) 20:36, 18 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 23:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ornela Livramento

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a Cape Verdean women's basketball player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The best I found was this interview. JTtheOG (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG -- Aunva6talk - contribs 21:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:G5 (created by a sock of User:Amansharma111). – Joe (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mubarack Nissa

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

The only references I find that is reliable and doesn't fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA is this. CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 18 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 Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war. The editors have expressed sustained coverage and sigcov issues, as well as favoring a merge to the aforementioned article. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 16:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike

[edit]
Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED; sources in the article only regurgitate the UNRWA press release.

Outside the article, the most expansive sources are Al Arabiya and Business Insider, but in relation to this event all those do is repeat the UNRWA press release; there is no significant independent coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. BilledMammal (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Insider source does not simply regurgitate the UNRWA press release; it also considers the overall places the airstrike in the wider context of other bombinbs and covers a lack of response from the IDF and UNRWA when they requested further comment. Additionally, this Al Jazeera article has further coverage of how refugees had been living in the school and how the strike affected them. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The coverage of the airstrike in the Insider piece, excluding quotes, is:

    At least six people were killed after a United Nations refugee school was bombed during Israeli airstrikes, said the relief agency running the shelter.

    Dozens of people, including UNRWA staff, were injured, and the school suffered "severe structural damage," he added.

    And even those two are quotes, just summarized ones. The rest of the coverage is about attacks on healthcare facilities; significant coverage of that topic, but not this topic.
    The Al Jazeera article is a little better, but even that lacks independent coverage focused on this event. BilledMammal (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into main article where it already isn't included, as there is insufficient coverage but relevant content. FortunateSons (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:GNG which states that "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." That indicates the coverage received is sufficient to demonstrate notability. The strike was also covered by Al-Ahram the Egyptian newspaper of record. The attack was mentioned in a report which aired on Euronews a couple of weeks after the strike, as well. I'm concerned that the nom here is well-known to have a very strongly pro-Israel POV and that may be part of why they want this article to be deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AusLondoner, the claim of regurgitation is untrue, as is the claim that this was only covered in those sources. nableezy - 19:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war. Simply occurring and being reported on in the news does not make an event notable. It requires WP:SIGCOV that is WP:SUSTAINED. Maybe this can be given its own article if there are journals using this airstrike as a case study after the war ends. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we’re requiring journal articles for every event then we should be deleting every attack by Hamas and hell the entire war article. nableezy - 06:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    nableezy there are plenty of journal articles about the war (because the war is, you know, actually notable). I agree we should delete most attacks by Hamas, or at the very least merge them into a single list. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We had an article within hours of the initial attack. Nobody in their right mind would have said we needed to wait for a journal article to conclude that was notable. Now I might actually agree with a no newspaper policy, hell I’m pretty sure I’ve suggested it before, but it’s never going to happen so I don’t think it’s reasonable to say this article must be based on journal articles but all those need not be. nableezy - 11:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The appropriate merge target should be Al-Maghazi refugee camp airstrikes and not Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war. Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This page exists precisely because the subject is one of the more notable examples of its kind – an early and at-the-time shocking assault against a school and UNRWA facility before such things became depravely normalized in the conflict – hence the widespread and in-depth coverage at the time and afterwards. Seems WP:GNG. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete Hi, So I think Billedmammal has a point but I can also understand merging so both options are good I think. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 23:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safiétou Kolga

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, an Ivorian women's basketball player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found some quotes here. JTtheOG (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG -- Aunva6talk - contribs 21:24, 18 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 23:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Zee Café

[edit]
List of programmes broadcast by Zee Café (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NLIST. These do not appear to be original programming and I cannot find sources that talk about the grouping as a whole, just individual references about the separate programming. Could redirect title to Zee Café as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W33EL-D

[edit]
W33EL-D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 17:40, 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) 19:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RocknRollDating

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

Article created by Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MusicLover650 evading a salting on Rocknrolldating. None of the sources I looked at discuss the subject in sufficient depth to qualify for WP:NORG * Pppery * it has begun... 16:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sagarmatha Choudhary Eye Hospital, Lahan

[edit]
Sagarmatha Choudhary Eye Hospital, Lahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted numerous times and salted as Sagarmatha Choudhary Eye Hospital. Not seeing the kind of coverage that would be required to establish notability per WP:NORG * Pppery * it has begun... 16:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muksamse'lapli

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

Seems very obscure biography. Very little references found through Google search. Seaweed (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert Hamel

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of mayors of Ipswich, Queensland. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Harding

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

Mayors are not automatically notable under WP:NPOL. I could not find sufficient sources with significant coverage to demonstrate that this article meets the GNG. In the article, only the Brisbane Times may count – the rest are electoral results and a government (CCC) report that doesn't mention the subject. As part of WP:BEFORE, I found two articles [8] [9], neither of which constitutes SIGCOV of the subject. Toadspike (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Eden, a discussion on a different mayor article created by the same editor. Toadspike (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added some further sources which I think come under SIGCOV Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike if the "Delete" vote wins can we instead redirect to List of mayors of Ipswich, Queensland similar to what happened with the pages of Amy Eden and Jilly Gibson? Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a redirect would also be appropriate. Toadspike (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Military, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to pass WP:SIGCOV based on the cited sources. I'd need to see a more convincing source analysis by the nominator to be convinced otherwise.4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviewing this nomination after some time, I would like to thank Totallynotarandomalt69 for adding further good sources that provide significant coverage. This article now comes close to proving notability. However, per WP:GNG, Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Recounting the sources, only ABC News and The Courier Mail clearly meet the GNG. I do not believe that the Brisbane Times article provides significant coverage (four sentences are about the subject herself, most of which is simply summarizing electoral results), and the government sources are not SIGCOV. Thus, I still believe the article should be deleted/redirected and will not withdraw my nomination, though I understand if editors disagree. Toadspike (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ipswich is not a large enough place to assume its mayors are notable, and I'm only seeing local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What we like in articles about a local officeholder is information that illustrates the impact of their tenure in office. What projects did they champion, what is their legacy. Size of city is not an important factor. Like the nominator, I do not see that significant sources exists. --Enos733 (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing to establish GNG here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are pretty good and she's notable in her own right, 230k people definitely isn't an insignificant number. AmNowEurovision (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:55, 18 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 Succession to the British throne#Current line of succession. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Vogel

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

No evidence of any notability. A reporter did some OR and identified what he thought was the last in the line of succession. In reality the lne of succession is almost infinite, if one whole line died out the rules allow succession to be tracked back to earlier monarchs and through wider family connections. This is just trivial nonsense. Was PRODed and dePRODded before, hence this AfD. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   13:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. Stub with limited opportunity for growth. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft. ✗plicit 13:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secure Islands

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

Previously deleted and salted as Secure Islands Technologies, this version was originally created by the same spammer. It cites better-looking sources and is written in a less promotional tone, but the sources all seem to rely on information provided by the company and fail WP:ORGIND * Pppery * it has begun... 15:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:48, 18 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 La Plaine St. André. ✗plicit 13:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Takamaka Rum

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

The focal point of significance lies in "La Plaine St. André," a 400-year-old historical plantation where this rum company operates a distillery and a store. It seems rather awkward that instead of the plantation having its own dedicated page, the brand is represented solely. Moreover, the page lacks reliable sources and is being developed by a banned editor exclusively focused on promoting this rum brand. Charlie (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:48, 18 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) ToadetteEdit! 12:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filmfare Award Bangla for Best Supporting Actress

[edit]
Filmfare Award Bangla for Best Supporting Actress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent sourcing. FilmfraeFilmfare awards is owned by The Times Group, disqualifying both ET and TOI. Sohom (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by independent sourcing? Citations are from official site of Filmfare, why is it not permissible? Sahajitbro (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that to attest of notability of the award, independent sources are needed. For verification, they should, however, be permissible imv (if the page is kept or redirected). (note; tiny typo in the rationale that you might want to fix Filmfrae-->Filmfare (as it is a key word, in case someone copy-pastes it).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sahajitbro Take a lookWP:INDEPENDENT. You need to have independent coverage to show notability, not coverage from official potentially biased sources. Sohom (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. SK1, both draftifys withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beloit and Madison Railroad

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

Requesting to draftify this article after unilateral draftification was objected to by the original author.

On January 17, a one-sentence AfC draft was submitted and rejected.[16] The author made no changes to the draft and on April 12 made the exact same one-sentence article directly into the mainspace,[17] which was proposed for CSD under A7 as it makes no claim of importance[18] and kept.[19] After the article was not improved, it was moved to draftspace clobbering the still-existing rejected AfC draft[20] and then moved back to mainspace by the original author.[21] Because the draft was moved back to mainspace, it is no longer eligible for unilateral draftification so I must propose it here at AfD. Dan • ✉ 18:46, 18 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) ToadetteEdit! 12:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrabaecampi

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

No refs on the page. Seems like a WP:DICDEF. The only refs I see using the word are direct quotations from Ptolemy. JMWt (talk) 08:05, 28 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) 09:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 11 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) 18:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is supposed to happen? The article should have been kept instead of being relisted until somebody shows up to !vote delete. The article should be referenced and expanded per normal editing procedures. Srnec (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, currently completely useless, this policy probably applies Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the article currently tells you (1) the primary source, Ptolemy; (2) the Greek transliteration; and (3) where the tribe lived. All information that can be used to track down sources for expanding. Srnec (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This just doesn't seem notable, and again has no references, and never really will since there is no mention of it except for book's passing reference to Ptolemy. Also, the article was relisted since there only 1 vote. @Srnec Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Current state of the article is irrelevant. TNT is not a policy. The entry is merely a single sentence long, which makes TNT meaningless. This is not a hoax in any form, so a deletion should not be the case. After a very superficial search, I can see that there are some sources available: [22][23] There are some more on the German Wikipedia, according to which this was a subdivision of a more major tribe (Campi/Kampoi/...), which may merit a move. Overall, I have no prejudice to changing my vote to merge but don't think this should be deleted. Aintabli (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick search shows that there is no information about that tribe ([24]) other than Wikipedia and people copying from it. Does seem like there is some passing reference to it in books, but frankly also seem not to meet notability guidelines, and is 100% a WP:DICDEF. Also, this article is currently useless. TNT may not be a policy, but in this case isn't not a terrible idea.@Aintabli Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that this is simply useless. What I get from TNT is that a clean restart saves a lot of time and is sometimes beneficial when the page has too many major problems. This is obviously not the case here. As I have already pointed out, this tribe is a part of a major tribe (Kampoi), which is the actual focus of the German Wikipedia entry. I believe moving and expanding is also an option as I have found several more sources here. At best, this could be merged into another article. I am pretty much opposed to deletion at this point. Aintabli (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see a sensible place to merge this. A merge would be better, if anyone has an idea of where it should go. And I think this should be renamed to match the name of the German article, which is about the broader group this is a sub-group of. But I do think that broader group is notable. The source linked in the de-wiki article gives us about an entire page of text, with the heading Kampoi, in a specialist encyclopedia. -- asilvering (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the German Wiki stuff. Unimpressive, but enough to keep. Didn't add the German Wiki source. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nigar Malikova

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

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, or really much coverage at all. JTtheOG (talk) 18:43, 18 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 due to lack of participation. This close is with no prejudice against speedy re-nomination should any editor wish to do so. Daniel (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Yıldız

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

Fails WP:GNG, I don't want to mention WP:NPOL here at all because it does not apply. Just being an ambassador does not guarantee notability, especially if they do not pass WP:GNG independently. BEFORE returns nothing to establish GNG either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Numerous secondary, independent sources providing significant coverage exist to demonstrate notability. Some are cited in the article. Most are in Turkish but that is not an impediment to their use to demonstrate notability nor to their use on English Wikipedia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You and I know that that is not the case here, there's no source here to establish GNG, this is not a matter of whether the language of the sources is Turkish or not, sources can be translated if they're not in English. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:02, 11 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) 18:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. BLP, sources in article and BEFORE did not show WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found name mentions in connection to statements they made, but these have nothing to do with the subject, but statements made in relation to their job. BLPs require strong sourcing and an individual does not inherit notability from the position they hold.  // Timothy :: talk  23:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn‎. Daniel (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Smoluća

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

Fails WP:GNG. Disputed draftification moved back to mainspace. I cannot find anything in reliable sources to support notability. CNMall41 (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“I cannot find anything in reliable sources to support notability!” Well, look at the sources i put on the article. There is one that literally has people involved of the siege being interviewed. Orhov (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Orhov:, I reliable it can be frustrating having a page you created sent to AfD. However, it is best to remain calm and WP:CIVIL during the discussion. You added a website which contained two sentences and some pictures. The other reference is a YouTube video. I will look through the references supplied by experienced users above but a Google search for "siege of Smoluca" did not show anything in a WP:BEFORE that would be useful here. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I will look at the sources Dege31 listed and will change the references. Orhov (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As you see, the references don't actually support what was written. Please stick with WP:INCITE and use the sources provided by Dege31 and it should be fine. Good luck and ping me when you are done and I will take a look. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 I have added the sources Dege31 listed for the top section of the article. As for the rest I, i reused the Order of battle reference, because it contains a lot of Reliable quotes and information. Orhov (talk) 02:38, 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 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. Daniel (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace Tangiiti

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The NRL Rugby piece in the article (archived here) is the best source I could find. JTtheOG (talk) 18:27, 18 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. Daniel (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frame (journal)

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 18 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. Daniel (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WNYN-LD

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 17:20, 18 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. Daniel (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. No results from a WP:BEFORE search. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have already put the title into namespace, however the redirect was removed and recreated into mainspace. The draft is still there though. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 01:34, 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 delete‎. Creating a single article that captures the content of similar pages can be pursued independently. Owen× ☎ 22:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Road signs in Lesotho

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

This is just a NOTGALLERY violation plain and simple. There's basically zero prose and it only exists to include related images. The only sources provided appear to be primary. The scope of the article does not appear to be providing information outside a collection of images. These belong on Commons, which actually does host galleries with little to no prose. GMGtalk 16:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Africa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also delete the articles on the "See also" section which has the same problems (created by others), as well as the Road signs in Cyprus article created by the same editor. The editor has been here for over a decade and they should know better by now. These are just some of the articles I've checked. There maybe others with the same issue. The editor should look at Road signs in the United Kingdom for inspiration if those are the types of articles they are interested in.Tamsier (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a single article about road signs in countries that use the SADC system (South Africa, Botswana, Tanzania, Namibia; possibly others?) with a few examples of common signs of each type and highlighting any that differ from the standard. There is the start of useful encyclopaedia article here. The present format is not great, but deletion is not the solution to a poorly structured encyclopaedia article. Thryduulf (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh...There are like 100 of these, and they're not really attempts at writing an encyclopedia article in the first place. What you're suggesting doesn't sound very much like a merge, but more like writing a new article. Having two broken primary web links, a primary gov manual, and two lines of prose doesn't really give you a whole lot to work with. GMGtalk 22:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's definitely an encyclopedia article to be written about road signage practices in Lesotho. But unfortunately we have a giant gallery with no encyclopedic information. I'm not opposed to Thryduulf's suggestion, but for this article I would advocate WP:TNT without prejudice against someone recreating an actual article at this title. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:TNT as per the above.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Owen× ☎ 22:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eco Yosemite Park

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

Ship exists but appears unremarkable, I cannot find anything about it in secondary sources. Searching the ship's name gives me ship tracking websites and ecotourism in Yosemite Park. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:53, 18 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corston Airstrip

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

Non-notable private airstrip owned by a private individual. It exists, but almost nothing can be said about it. Even the minimal information in the article is not supported by the sources (the claim "Corston Airfield is commonly used for plane charters around the Orkney Islands" is not supported by the source it is attributed to). Significant coverage in secondary sources is nil. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per guidance in WP:NAIRPORT that private, unattended airports are usually not notable and 0 coverage I can find. BrigadierG (talk) 15:46, 18 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. Owen× ☎ 22:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was deleted 3 1/2 years ago, and while this may not strictly be recreation of deleted material, the reasons for deletion then still apply. By German law, he is not actually a prince, and there are thus no noble houses; and that seems to be his only claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - head of a defunct royal house is still notable. This was just on the "Did you know" part of the Main Page. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Technically, he's not the head of a defunct royal house, he's the son of the head of a defunct royal house.
    2601:249:9301:D570:A899:3E2B:BB8C:AE49 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Bearian (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is this some kind of infinite loop whereby the page is recreated every few years and then sent to AfD where the same participants make essentially the same comments? JMWt (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Classic example of there being sources, but no significant coverage more than an inch deep. As already stated, he is not actually a noble, which might have justified such an article, but the German nobility have been abolished for over 100 years. Yes, CBS has a bunch of pictures of their wedding, but this is essentially the equivalent of those "human interest stories" newspapers sometimes run where they give a deep dive to someone but not really due to any direct importance. To quote AFD2: "The rest of the article is utterly trivial (was born, went to school, got a job, got married, had kids, that's it.)". Not notable. SnowFire (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see that this article survived a deletion discussion years ago, failed another a few years after that, and now is up for deletion again. Definitely odd that it should get through the DYK process, only to be potentially deleted. My thoughts -- if he were the current head of the house, I'd be more keen on notability, but he's the heir, so whatever. The article as-is doesn't have great sourcing but I'd say there are sources to be found. The sources related to his marriage are fine sources. Might be a close-run thing, but given the choice to delete or keep, I say keep. The article doesn't need to be perfect right now, and I'm reasonably confident it will improve in the future. RexSueciae (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails SUSTAINED, sources restricted to breathless human interest crud, zero presumption of notability for being the "head" of defunct noble family. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is some coverage and I have expanded this article from when it was deleted the first time. By the nominator's logic, a Prince from a defunct royal dynasty does not deserve an article on Wikipedia. Okay, so does that mean the articles of Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece, Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza, Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples, Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon, Franz, Duke of Bavaria, and many more should be deleted also? Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is true that there is a nest of borderline-notability members of former noble families that could probably be deleted, although your examples aren't them. 2) Vittorio Emanuele is a bad example; he really was a noble when he was a kid, so he'd be judged under actual noble standards. 3) Most of your example articles involve people who have done notable things that would merit their inclusion regardless of their nobility - Franz von Bayern (who is not a Duke of Bavaria, for the record, there is no such position) would merit an article if he was simply a wealthy philanthropist with a backstory about his family having opposed the Nazis and been locked up by them. That's actually the more relevant hypothetical to think about: suppose that there was some parallel person to Hubertus who was not a noble, not a pretender, but was born into wealth and lived an identical life to Hubertus. Suppose we also had "high society" news that talked about all the wealthy friends that showed up to this scion's wedding. Is that enough for an article? Because that's the standard that needs to be met. We have this situation crop up all the time elsewhere for non-noble rich people, and we generally demand a little more than just "they exist" to get an article - they need to do something, anything. Sponsor a Formula 1 team, be a philanthropist, be a political donor or advocate, etc. Take a look at, say, Mellon family - you'll note that while there's plenty of bluelinks in the family tree, there's plenty of non-linked articles, too. Not everyone born into wealth gets a Wikipedia article, and that's okay. SnowFire (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • These cases are not all equivalent anyway. I note first that the last's article is under his actual name, and that Vittorio Emanuele is probably notable fo all his escapades if nothing else. The Greek fellow presents something of a different issue since he was once crown prince but hasn't been such since he was seven or so, but all the business about a Greek royal house has been nonsense for half a century at least. The Portuguese and French pretenders likely should be deleted on the same grounds as this, namely, they seem to have no notability beyond supposedly being in their nonexistent positions. Thee's still time. Mangoe (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If it is indeed true that the subject is not in fact a hereditary prince because such titles have been abolished, I would have to suggest that even if he is notable (I'll not offer opinion on that until I've looked into the matter further), it is a gross violation of WP:NPOV to describe him as such, either in the article title or anywhere else. Wikipedia is not (amongst very many other things) a platform for advocacy for the restoration of German aristocratic ranks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily, because the common name of a thing is not necessarily the same as its legal name. Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex is not his name legally. Jahaza (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that Wikipedia policy permits demonstrably false assertions of hereditary rank in article titles? That would appear to me to constitute a violation of WP:BLP policy amongst other things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:COMMONNAME we use the names commonly used for people. And, like it or not, members of royal families, whether or not their country is still a monarchy, are generally still referred to using the titles which they claim. We don't make a special exception to COMMONNAME for them. Arguing we should just sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:GNG. Besides the coverage the article subject got for his wedding back in 2009, he has been receiving coverage satisfying WP:SUSTAINED: Bunte, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Gala, Neue Presse, inFranken, Bayerischer Rundfunk, and L'Éventail. Also, whether or not the article subject is actually a prince or a noble has no bearing whatsoever on notability and getting a standalone page and neither does the content of the article itself. --StellarHalo (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When there is significant coverage, why is there only trivia in the article? As discussed above, there is no notability from the sources. A redirect to his father or his family would fulfill any encyclopedic needs. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He does appear to satisy WP:GNG. That's all that matters. Any other claims are mere anti-monarchist POV WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as an American I suppose I am supposed to an anti-monarchist, but whether or not Charles III ought to be king of the United Kingdom, the fact is that he does hold that position. Meanwhile I go back to this fellow's great-grandfather, who was the last man to actually be the duke, and I find he lost both his British and German titles as fallout from WW I. Everything since then is pretense. This man is not a prince, and it's rather difficult thing to work with sources which are playing along with the pretense, and even if one appeals to WP:COMMONNAME we are now culpable of participating in the fraud by calling him a prince. If he's notable as fake nobility, so be it, but I am dubious about that, and in any case, it is in that fake nobility which his only possible notability can lie. Mangoe (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no fraud or pretense. People can call themselves whatever they like. A state may strip hereditary nobles of their titles for political reasons but that does not invalidate those titles, particularly since that state didn't give them the titles in the first place (these titles long predate the Federal Republic of Germany, or indeed any other version of Germany). And if reliable sources generally use those titles then COMMONNAME is satisifed. As I said, your argument is no more than IDONTLIKEIT. As to Americans being anti-monarchist, I think many of your compatriots would disagree with you; many of them seem to be utterly obsessed with the British monarchy! -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're getting a bit side-tracked here. COMMONNAME is maybe relevant if we decide the article is keep-able for how it should be titled. It's not relevant if the article doesn't meet the notability bar.
Obviously where the line is drawn will differ from person to person, but I'll say the same thing as above: if there was an article with the same level of sourcing and same degree of notable events on some rich scion but who had no recent-ish noble blood, should that article be kept? If people !voting "keep" here say yes, then fine, that's just differing notability standards, although I'm personally not a fan of articles mostly sourced to fawning society blotters. But I suspect that the result for such an article would generally be no, it'd get deleted. And if that's the case, then this article has the same exact issue, because objectively speaking Hubertus is just a scion of a wealthy family, at least according to current German law, like it or not. SnowFire (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Could anyone who claim, that it passes WP:GNG, explain how the coverage constitute "significant coverage". From what I checked, it appears really trivial to me. I asked already above and as by now nobody answered, I want to clarify my question. Whoever claims that WP:GNG is satisfied should be able to explain, what is significant about the coverage per WP:SIGCOV. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 21:17, 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) 14:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep look, titles or no, CBS News thought this fellow was relevant enough to publish their wedding photos. Official aristocracy or unofficial, clearly the name carries some weight. This is in-depth coverage, and no it doesn't make a difference that weddings are common.
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/american-woman-marries-royalty/14/ BrigadierG (talk) 15:51, 18 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ESC Reporter

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

Aside from the page having seemingly been created by the editor in chief (note them sharing the exact same name), I can find no claim of notability nor any sigcov; the Kyiv Post article is just a link to one of their interviews, the Kamaliya website is not notable, the Ukrainian Pravda mentions an interview they did in one line and being accredited as fan media by the EBU does not grant notability; many small blogs get accredited but are not notable. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:52, 18 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luiz Carlos (footballer, born 1988)

[edit]
Luiz Carlos (footballer, born 1988) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A guy who plays in the 4th series of Brazilian football is not notable, not to mention no news coverage of the guy that I can find. Fails WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:00, 18 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Aro

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

Fails WP:GNG, the guy played, as far as I know, exactly one world cup game and recived virtually no coverage for it. He doesn't even have a portugese wiki entry. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:58, 18 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maycon (footballer, born 1985)

[edit]
Maycon (footballer, born 1985) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any sources for this guy, he plays for a hardly notable team. WP:GNG is failed. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:51, 18 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. If anyone disagrees, feel free to just revert this, but I don't see any reasonable prospect for a consensus to emerge to remove this. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gandra, Póvoa de Varzim

[edit]
Gandra, Póvoa de Varzim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 10:42, 27 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) 01:55, 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! 04:14, 11 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) 13:28, 18 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Nevada air ambulance crash

[edit]
2023 Nevada air ambulance crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and the event criteria. Fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED. The last article giving information on the crash was a little more than a year ago. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:59, 18 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 page's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 16

[edit]
Episode 16 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is only one article this name and the other is just a redirect link. Does not meet G14 as it links to (or should I say, disambiguates) two articles JuniperChill (talk) 12:52, 18 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 Swedish football league system as the outcome found least objectionable by participants here, without prejudice against splitting the target into a separate page covering the lower leagues. Owen× ☎ 22:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Division 8 (Swedish football)

[edit]
Division 8 (Swedish football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this tenth league tier in Sweden does exist, I don't see the point of it having an encyclopedic entry. There is little to say other than supplying a dictionary definition of Division 8 as well as trivial truisms such as the winners being promoted to Division 7. The reason is that such low tiers only get local news coverage, if even that, making it failing in generating significant coverage. This overview of Division 7 pre-pandemic shows match attendances ranging from 5 to 60. Most districts in Sweden don't even have enough teams to fill tiers as low as this. (I would surmise that Division 5, 6 and 7 should go as well, but I won't make a bundled nomination ever again.) Geschichte (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep – There is little coverage, but it is understandable as it is the lowest level of Swedish football league system. I think it's worth maintaining the article so it doesn't become a lack. Svartner (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, indeed a very weak keep, for the same reasons that this is a keep—continuity, if nothing else. I admit, though, that the fact that it is part of the Swedish football pyramid alone doesn't justify the article's existence. The majority of leagues in the English football pyramid don't have articles of their own. However, every league between levels 1 and 11 has an article, so perhaps precedent is there to keep this one as well. In any case, I'm not opposed to deleting this article. Anwegmann (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Swedish football league system, it being part of a series of articles is not reason to keep it. GiantSnowman 16:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge What should really happen here is the Swedish lower leagues should all be merged into their own article so that we don't lose valid, sourced information, even though the information isn't necessarily notable enough for a stand-alone page. However there's no good merge target - it's something that should happen through editing, so a keep with a plan to merge - it's unusual, but that's what should really happen here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider merge option, as proposed by SportingFlyer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:19, 18 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. Since someone did propose draftify as an option, I'll note I'm not at all opposed to the page being refunded to draft space for further work if requested. However, for the time being, the original author is inactive and no one has shown a particular interest in improving the article, so I'm going with delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LandFighter

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

Nearly unsourced advertisement of non-notable brand. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I'm closing this, after blocking the creator and another editor for socking. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ucodelite

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

Per previous AFD (interrupted by speedy deletion), "Fails NSOFT (more broadly, GNG) ... BEFORE search turns up no possible reliable sources to indicate notability..." I've cleared out the blatant spam, and what's left is yet another non-notable IDE, with coverage only in primary sources. Declined four times at draft, then finally speedy deleted as spam there too. Wikishovel (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Salt -- assuming my moving of it to draft space gets untangled, this page which lacks in sourcing indicating notability and which has been recreated in attempts to evade procedure should be WP:SALTed to keep us from going through this again. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, the article have been deleted! Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
then please tell me what to do now Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been restored for the course of this discussion. What you can try to do now is to present reliable, third-party sources that indicate that Ucodelite is notable. Either that, or you can come to accept what has been pointed out by various experienced editors here, that the topic does not currently qualify for a Wikipedia page, and that you should direct your energies elsewhere. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to respond and clarify the situation regarding Ucodelite's Wikipedia page. I understand that for a topic to be included on Wikipedia, it needs to meet certain notability criteria based on reliable, third-party sources.
While I don't have access to any existing Wikipedia articles on Ucodelite at this time, I'm happy to explore other avenues to demonstrate its notability.
Here's what I can do:
  • Gather Credible Sources: I can search for articles, reviews, or mentions of Ucodelite in established publications, tech blogs, or industry reports. These sources could help build a case for Ucodelite's notability within the tech community.
  • Consider Alternative Visibility Options: If a Wikipedia page isn't currently feasible, perhaps there are other online directories or platforms where Ucodelite's information can be presented in a credible way.
Would you be open to discussing alternative strategies to increase Ucodelite's online presence? I'm open to your suggestions and expertise.
Thank you again for your feedback. Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for considering my nomination for a Wikipedia page on Ucodelite. I understand your concerns about the notability of Ucodelite at this time.
While I may not have been able to present third-party sources during this discussion, I am committed to building a strong case for Ucodelite's notability.
Here's what I propose:
  • Time for Further Research: I would appreciate it if you could allow the article to remain for a designated period (perhaps 3-6 months) to give me time to gather more reliable sources that establish Ucodelite's notability.
  • Active Development: During this time, I will actively work on improving the article with credible sources and ensuring it meets Wikipedia's guidelines.
I understand that creating a Wikipedia page is a significant undertaking, and I am committed to putting in the necessary effort to create a high-quality article.
If, after the designated period, I am unable to provide sufficient evidence of Ucodelite's notability, I am happy to accept your decision and will withdraw the nomination.
This is my first attempt at contributing to Wikipedia, and I am eager to learn and improve. I would greatly appreciate your guidance and support in this process.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that we're not here to discuss "strategies to increase Ucodelite's online presence". Deletion discussions typically run for about a week. If there are WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources to show why it's notable enough for an encyclopedia article, then now is the time to add them. Wikishovel (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have zero interest in working to promote the product, and using Wikipedia not only as a method to promote the product but to recruit others to help you promote the product is inappropriate.
There is neither a procedural basis nor any obvious reason for allowing this advertisement to remain on Wikipedia for months. We do not aim to create articles hoping that the subject might some day become notable. And our decision is unlikely to hinge on whether you are happy with the decision.
You are at this point still welcome to plan out a page off-line and when, in the future, you have sufficient references to establish notability, submit it again at Articles For Creation. Let me recommend that if you take that path, you avoid the sort of promotional text that your work has been laden with, or you may run the risk of being judged not here to serve the goals of Wikipedia and have even those editing permissions removed.
You recently added a declaration on your user page that you are a Recent Changes Patroller. While I see nothing in your edit history that suggests that is actually the case, it does suggest a path you might take if you truly want to learn to edit and improve Wikipedia. By steering away from topics that you are passionate about and instead checking new changes to see if they are properly worded, formatted, and sourced, you may gain better insight on the procedures and goals of this website. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:50, 18 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslav Kopřiva

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

Bobsleigh athlete Jaroslav Kopřiva has finished top 10 in recent years during his playing career, with the highest being first place at North American Cup (NAC Bobsleigh & Skeleton) in Park City. However, this article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG due to lack of sufficient coverage. The closest references I found about him are Ref 1 and Ref 2. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ORCA Grant

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

Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources. Previously deleted by PROD and re-created. An example of the over-coverage of Brigham Young University topics. AusLondonder (talk) 08:01, 18 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! 23:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karayel (horse)

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

There is a possible case of notability on the merits of this being a very successful horse, but sourcing is poor here. We have a lot of directory listings and two articles (one in a trade magazine). I was able to find an actual description of this horse in Horse Racing: The Records. Even with that and generously reading of WP:GNG, I feel this poor horse comes up just short. If only there was a WP:NHORSE. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the source given in the nomination statement says "Karayel was the best horse ever to race in Turkey...". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Broc (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gingerah, Western Australia

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

Place exists in census data but shows no population. Satellite images show no roads and no signs of human activity in the area. Does not fulfill WP:NGEO. Broc (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The population was 5 in the 2016 Australian census. Also, it doesn't have to be populated/residential to be notable—for example, the area seems to be a proposed renewable energy hub[43].--Canley (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 03:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hot milk cake

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

Non-notable cake that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Although it may not be obvious from the article (which I've not looked at), this is a baking technique for sponge cakes, rather than an individual recipe. One of the earliest known recipes was published in 1911.[44] It became popular during the Great Depression and wartime rationing.[45] We have some information about how the cake works (the hot milk starts cooking the egg whites before the cake goes in the oven).[46] WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Classic baking technique. Already kept in an earlier AfD. The Banner talk 15:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UDig

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 14:24, 21 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! 07:25, 28 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) 09:34, 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! 07:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What new sources, User:Svartner?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G3. Complex/Rational 13:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPI World Soccer Player of the Year Award

[edit]
UPI World Soccer Player of the Year Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles based on fake material. The materials of Anatoly Skorobogadko are fake, distributed by Volodymyr VB, who was previously blocked in the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Skorobogadko’s materials mention previously exposed hoaxes about polls by the Berlin-Britz radio station, which in reality never existed (there is actually a transmitter). Or polls of the Slavic Party of Ukraine to determine the best East Slavic football player, which, of course, were never conducted. See previous discussions that provide important context: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Football Coach of the Year, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Football Coach of the Season, uk:Вікіпедія:Кнайпа (допомога)#Містифікація чи історія. Mitte27 (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G3. Complex/Rational 13:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA 70th anniversary retrospective awards

[edit]
FIFA 70th anniversary retrospective awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles based on fake material. The materials of Anatoly Skorobogadko are fake, distributed by Volodymyr VB, who was previously blocked in the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Skorobogadko’s materials mention previously exposed hoaxes about polls by the Berlin-Britz radio station, which in reality never existed (there is actually a transmitter). Or polls of the Slavic Party of Ukraine to determine the best East Slavic football player, which, of course, were never conducted. See previous discussions that provide important context: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Football Coach of the Year, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Football Coach of the Season, uk:Вікіпедія:Кнайпа (допомога)#Містифікація чи історія. Mitte27 (talk) 06:45, 18 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! 23:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K24HH-D

[edit]
K24HH-D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 18 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. Not much support for redirect, and no obvious target identified anyway. Owen× ☎ 22:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Principle of abstraction

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

Insufficient content to determine article subject. Existing content is unclear. No sources given.

WP:BEFORE search is complicated. Most uses of the phrase are in reference to philosophy of Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell. Admittedly, I am having a hard time understanding their meaning of this term. See, eg.

Mauri Leppänen seems to have independently developed her own meaning for the phrase.

While this is dense material that I have not fully grasped, I am sufficiently persuaded that their meaning is not closely related to the current content of this article, and so is irrelevant to this discussion. Daask (talk) 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While several editors have voiced support for Deletion, there is a list of possible sources that I'm not confident have been examined so I'm relisting this discussion for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here is a chapter on the specific "principle of abstraction" as discussed by Gottlob and Frege. If it merits a whole 24-page chapter in an academic philosophy book, it's almost certainly possible to write an article on it. A search of Google Scholar with Bertrand Russell's name attached turns up plenty of other results as well. Frege and Russell are certainly both highly notable philosophers, if a concept is being discussed by the two of them we can at the very least write about what secondary sources say that the two of them had to say about it. Psychastes (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mere existence of a reference with that title is insufficient to show that the topic is better served by a dedicated article rather than being covered in an article with a broader scope, e.g., Bertrand Russell's philosophical views, Russell's paradox, Logicism, etc. And the existing text is bad enough to call for WP:TNT. XOR'easter (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is probably not a great standalone article, and probably won't ever be unless someone who is really into early 20th century analytic philosophy decides to flesh it out in detail, but that's a better argument for a redirect with possibilities than for deletion. WP:TNT seems unnecessary, there's nothing wrong with the article like copyright violations in the history or anything, and at least "principle of abstraction" could be categorized as a concept in various philosophy categories per WP:INCOMPATIBLE where the target page isn't a principle or a concept. And the fact that a full article likely won't ever be written doesn't change the fact that it could be. Psychastes (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, Psychastes, what would you suggest as a Redirect target article then? Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, there doesn't seem to be much on Bertrand Russell's philosophical views right now that it could be pointed to (though if there were that might be an okay target...), so I think Abstraction#In_philosophy would probably be the best for now? Psychastes (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goolshanoy Jalolova

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

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, or really much coverage at all. JTtheOG (talk) 05:24, 18 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 06:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nico du Plessis

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV are transactional announcements (1, 2) JTtheOG (talk) 04:58, 18 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 06:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaine Orderson

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were trivial mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volusia error

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

A minor incident that was later pushed by Bev Harris as evidence to discredit the 2000 election. I can't find any unbiased sources (that aren't obviously connected to Harris) to satisfy WP:GNG. The closest sources I could find are the Washington Post piece and Jeffrey Toobin's Too Close to Call, neither of which provide detailed coverage about the incident, simply mentioning the error as one of several mistakes. The USA Today piece is opinion. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading Too Close to Call, it might barely contain significant coverage of the Volusia error: it describes how the error led networks to call the election for Bush, and says that a campaign staffer realized the mistake. But the coverage is somewhat brief, and one source still isn't enough for WP:GNG or WP:EVENTCRIT even if it is significant. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:35, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 03:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waycross, Indiana

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

Another case of "populated place" not meaning "settlement", because Waycross isn't the location of the camp and conference center: it is the facility itself. Waycross was opened by the diocese in 1957, and it pops up in a previously blank spot on the topos shortly thereafter. I'm marking this for deletion rather than some other outcome for three reasons: first, all I'm getting for it besides its website is directory listings, so notability is an issue anyway; second, there's nothing much in the article that would be useful in making an article anyway; and third, there should be no redirect from this name because it would allow the misconception that this is a settlement to persist. The article on the diocese doesn't mention the facility, but it should be called by its proper names (it's often just called Waycross) in linking to a section there. Mangoe (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity Network (matchmaking)

[edit]
Opportunity Network (matchmaking) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
At first glance this looks well-sourced, however on a closer look except for one source I couldn't access none of them are actually in-depth and independent. Nearly everything is reliant on information provided by the company's founders - the sole exception is the American Banker source which has one paragraph attributed to a third-party analyist

Both of those trends make Citizens' partnership with Opportunity Network stand out. In 2016, Patricia Hines, a senior analyst at Celent, researched the venture capital and private-equity money that was flowing to fintech startups. Only 5% of it, she found, was going to startups working on commercial applications.

"I have not seen anything even close to this," she said, referring to Opportunity Network.

But that by itself is nowhere near enough to support notability. Previously deleted and salted as Opportunity Network * Pppery * it has begun... 03:59, 11 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! 03:31, 18 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 03:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Han Won-chol

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maeve Kennedy McKean

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

Bringing this here because I expect it to be complex and I'm not sure whether a merger or a move is the right outcome, and given the subject matter it's too complex for a talk page.

Townsend/McKean's death was in the news because she was a Kennedy who died young/tragically. While there is sourcing for items that pre-dated her death, none of those positions convey notability, nor did her CUNY role nor her son's role as the first great grandchild of RFK & Ethel. Most of the coverage of her work came to light not because of her work while alive but in light of her death. I don't believe her death was notable as it was ruled an accidental drowning. A merge to her mother is possible as this article could be trimmed without losing much.

Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions. Star Mississippi 03:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taggart, Indiana

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

Another "nothing much there" place, and the supposed naming source does not check out, though I did learn a novel 19th century circumlocution for marriage: "bound in Hymen's chains". Anyway, the gods of Google did not shine upon me, as there are at least two quite famous Taggarts and plenty of kin and offspring to clog the works, but at an rate, I found nothing. Mangoe (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a 1987 article on the Taggart Cemetery which refers to the possibility that it may have once been the site of the first school house in Brown County. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Brown County Historical Society in 2020, there is now a historical marker where the first school and church in Brown Couny (actually a meeting house started by Brother Patterson C. Parker of the "Republican United Brethren Church"). Cielquiparle (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the place is it may be actually know as taggart-Hamblen James.folsom (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you mark that obit clip as public, so we can view it? James.folsom (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A 1939 article about the historic Taggart Cemetery, also referring to the first school house and church erected in Brown County. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only one problem with this... Communities turn out to be just rural areas, in AFD after AFD. Schools and cemeteries are found in rural areas. None of these things demonstrate the presence of a concentration of people rising to the level of a populated place. But I will be back with more detail... James.folsom (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously the # of taggart people is an issue. James.folsom (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tried a alot search tricks with the local paper to limit the hits to places, the only term that found anything was "taggart community" which only had ten hits, so thumbs down on this.James.folsom (talk) 02:53, 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Desiderio

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

Obviously fails notability, but with also COI issue. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Undoing my close, per request at talk page. Editor claims to have additional information. I am entertaining this request as the discussion was not relisted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Greenish Pickle!:, @Iitttlefir:, @Zxcvbnm:, @Govvy:, @TheTechnician27:, @InDimensional:, @HopalongCasualty: - note that I have zero opinion one way or the other regarding the post-close claims of notability on my talk page. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If thats the case, then ill recommend to '''Draftify''' the article for having COI issue. After looking at the sources, the 1st source were just interview, and other 2 is an awful sources. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am really confused by the claims of SIGCOV there, one of the sources is an interview and another is a potentially unreliable blog. The last is from a database. To me none of those change anything about the article's notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After the weeklong window of the nomination, there's still nothing that even begins to assert notability. Any viable sources (BBC, Hollywood Reporter) only mention him in passing and there's virtually zero article content, just a quick mention of his education and work history. Coupled with the infobox image, it's not a stretch to consider this a promotional piece. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 03:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources were mentioned at User talk:78.26 and the editor requesting relisting hasn't participated in this discussion yet. So, they weren't talking about the existing sources. Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - keep I am surprised you opened this back up, didn't think you wanted too. I am a bit confused by the nomination and the process here. People always go on about significant coverage. But we should always ask, is there basic coverage first. We have some interviews, like the ones in the article, vgmoline.net and this one by ozwe games, a smaller website interview here. and we have awards he won, two sources for [52], [53], for the Los Angeles Live Score Film Festival. Mentioned here as a winner in the article for the Global music award. Surely this all adds up for WP:BASIC. I agree google is limited but that doesn't negate new articles and they need to be given a chance to evolve, this was only added on April 9th, I don't see why you can't wait longer to see what happens with an article. But hey that's my take on it. Regards. Govvy (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment – Anyone can just hand out non-notable awards. I hereby award you the Wikipedia Award for Excellence in Filmmaking, the Internet Award for Charcuterie, and the 21st Century Video Game Award for Best Character Writing, so if you can sit down with me for an interview, I can have your article up within the week. If all it takes to get a Wikipedia article is to very obviously pay someone to write one for me then, when it's very predictably challenged on notability, show that I've had one or two meaningless interviews and won a couple awards by two-bit, no-name organizations as a form of muddying the waters to retain the article, then we've fallen pretty far from our efforts to clean up this sort of crap that infested the project in the 2000s. This article is effectively spam designed not for the benefit of the encyclopedia but for the sole benefit of its subject. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of these awards are significant, nor does scoring a non-notable film at the "LA Live Score Film Festival" work in establishing SIGCOV. Interviews are primary as they are used to promote the subject, plus Ozwe and Level With Emily are not even viable sources. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 20:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tonya Suzanne Holly

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

Delete: non-notable director/producer. Per IMDb, only accomplishments are When I Find the Ocean (2006) and The Mirror (2003). Other stuff (since 2012) still "in development". Nirva20 (talk) 01:34, 18 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. Daniel (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Barley (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary dab page per WP:ONEOTHER. Hatnotes can be added to both articles if necessary. CycloneYoris talk! 01:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Creator note, aren't you supposed to wait a reasonable time (at least ~a month) before nominating the article for deletion, as the states? Besides, there is a YouTuber with this name, albiet without spaces that plays cosy games but is unlikely to be written anytime soon. See also: Talk:Undertale Yellow JuniperChill (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Sure, but for disambiguation pages, it's normally really simple to fill out the rest of the article, so there's a bit less patience. If more relevant articles can be found (even if they're redlinks), maybe, but if not, there's no need for this. (And it'd be trivial to recreate if more articles ARE found.) Note that there is a comedian in the NYC area known as "Charlie Bardey" [57] who would be a valid addition to the disambiguation page as well if he's ever found notable enough for a separate article, but currently he doesn't have an article. SnowFire (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Couldn't find any other notable entries. What purpose is served by delaying the inevitable? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of mayors of West Valley City, Utah. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Lang

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Coverage is routine and local. Lacking significant coverage specifically about the individual. AusLondonder (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a rule that local coverage is ineligible for use, no. We do have a rule that local coverage in local-interest contexts isn't necessarily enough if it's all that a person has — every mayor of everywhere will always have some evidence of coverage in their local media, so if that were how it worked then Wikipedia would have no way to distinguish notable mayors from non-notable mayors at all, and we would have to indiscriminately keep an article about every single mayor who ever mayored anywhere on earth regardless of its quality. So no, the notability test for a mayor does not hinge on just showing three or four hits of purely local media coverage, and does require the article to do and say and source a lot more than this article is doing or saying or sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Djflem. The notability test for a mayor is not passed by just showing a handful of local coverage — it hinges on showing substantive content, referenced to a significant volume of media coverage, about her political impact: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. It's not enough to minimally verify that she exists — mayoral notability hinges on showing some concrete evidence of why she could be credibly considered one of the most uniquely important mayors in the entire country, which most certainly does require her to show either much more nationalized coverage than the norm for mayors, or a much greater volume of coverage than the norm for mayors. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We typically delete articles on mayors of small jurisdictions who have only received coverage in their own local area per NPOL, and this short article doesn't even come close to a showing of notability. No problem with a redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 15:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of mayors of West Valley City, Utah: Per Bearcat. GNG not passed and can be redirected. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_April_18&oldid=1220913188"