Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 05	April 07 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W32EV-D

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

Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Religion, Christianity, and Tennessee. Let'srun (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any coverage in Google Books or in a newspaper search. BrigadierG (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This channel is only notable at the local level, due to the lack of sourcing about it. TH1980 (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee brewery shooting

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable crime, no sustained coverage beyond the sequence of events. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Wisconsin. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. With all due respect to the victims, alas, this tragedy lacks notability. TH1980 (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SUSTAINED. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage. Good sourcing. Earlier AfD established notability for this event. An event like this does not become non-notable just because its not in the press every day years later. The sourcing shows notability, and 6 deaths are a high number. Per WP:GNG as well.BabbaQ (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is obviously sigcov from the days after the attack. There is also lasting coverage imo (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Also there are retrospectives about how racism may have influenced the shooter, 1 Lettlre (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is also pretty bad, I will improve it if it is kept. Lettlre (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: based on amount of coverage, meets WP:GNG.Royal88888 (talk) 08:33, 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!} 22:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Covered by at least several dozen RS, even if limited lasting impact. On search I also found this https://www.fox6now.com/news/miller-brewery-shooting-2-years-later which gets closer to satisfying WP:SUSTAINED BrigadierG (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Article is in bad state, but the coverage goes beyond routine-style reporting and was somewhat sustained. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Commodore 16 games

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

A list seemingly relying on copying from a Plus/4 World database. IgelRM (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NOTDATABASE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C16 was big in Europe. This is not the same exact list as PD/Homebrew games are omitted. NPI WOL (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - feels similar to the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Atari 2600 prototype games, which ended with a consensus to send it to the draft space. This sort of list can be done right. But not like this. Needs sourcing, which can be hard to come by with a subject so old like this. It could be improved, but it also has no business existing in the main space as is. Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was games not released, so totally unrelated to the situation here. Category:Video game lists by platform shows how many list like this exist. Any references can be found in the 76 game articles linked to. Dream Focus 03:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely irrelevant. Whether or not the games were released was not a factor in that discussion. The point was, it was a valid list premise, but couldn't be published as its current form because of a complete lack of sourcing. I dont understand how you missed the point so badly... Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already added some references simply by looking at the articles linked to and copying them over. As I clearly stated, the 76 games articles linked to have references confirming they exist. The many other lists like this don't have references for every single item. If you wish to delete any entry without a reference and/or their own article, then you still have 76 things listed, so its a valid list. Dream Focus 14:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say roughly 75% of the entries don't have an article to check for sources though, which still leaves you with an article that's either largely unsourced (or wildly incomplete if you remove all unsourced entries.) Still feels like a prime candidate for the draft space... Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as stated above, whilst somewhat lazy of me, the response in the Atari 2600 discussion is identically relevant here: The list is a valid one with a clear category and not inherently without merit. But it's just unverifiable based on the lack of sourcing, the ambiguous scope, and non-notability of the items themselves. Put it this way - if it were a list, the immediate question would be "How do you know these are eligible?" In this case, there is one source, but that isn't going to be enough to WP:VERIFY the list. More work is needed. (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for the reasons stated by ＶＲＸＣＥＳ.Rillington (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a relevant list of a relevant system, not some random prototype. NPI WOL (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you have to WP:VERIFY that the list is correct. It may not be as arbitrary as the other example, but relying on a single source for this list is putting a very strong faith in that source being a correct and complete list. So really the article is no more reliable than just going to the external source. The best course is to either find more sources, or draftify it until someone does so. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(You're supposed to identify yourself as the article creator.) Even ignoring Wikipedia policies that make this not okay, the list, as is, is completely unnecessary. You just stole another websites list and put it in Wikipedia. People should be going to see their website to see their list. It's entirely redundant. A list of these games is possible...but absolutely not like this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also want this article kept but I agree with ＶＲＸＣＥＳ, and would also add that the article needs independent references as well before it can be returned to mainspace. Therefore I feel that draftifying the article is the right course of action at this point.

One option might be for the list to be a combination of notable games and games which can be verified with an independent reference. Rillington (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: @NPI WOL: Could you say where you source this list from? I think policy is to Wikipedia:Revision deletion copyright violations, but we may keep the entries that can be verified by the added sources. We could redirect a redirect to the existing category as long as the list is in draft if that helps with concerns? IgelRM (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Commodore_16_and_Plus/4_games there are 76 games that have articles, so valid navigational list. Lists are always more useful than categories, since they allow more information. Dream Focus 03:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't address the severe sourcing issues raised. Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that above already. But I also went and found that MobyGames has all these games listed, with covers and screenshots proving they exist, and links to reviews done in old magazines about them that also prove they exist. The old magazines linked to are backed up on archive.org. Since no discussion on MobyGames being considered a reliable source has taken place in over a decade, I started a discussion for that at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#MobyGames_owned_by_Atari_now. Dream Focus 15:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For those of you not clicking on that link, please note that, as of my writing this, the suggestion of using MobyGames as a source was unanimously rejected by the Wikiproject members. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You and the four people who participated are against it. Dream Focus 15:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, correct. You suggested it. 5 people opposed. 0 supported. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Following the addition of external references I am now changing my vote from draftify to keep. Rillington (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor sourcing 6 out of 900+ entries was enough for you to decide incubating in the draft space was not necessary and is now ready to be published? Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 75 articles linked to have references that can be copied over, and there are old magazines archived that review other things. No one is going to work on the article if its in draft space. AFD determine if an article should exist, not judging the current state it is in. Dream Focus 15:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
20 references in the reflist now. Very easy to do. Dream Focus 15:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that are technically plausible, but wildly underdeveloped/undersourced, are the very reason why we have the draft space. There is no rush here. As I noted above, the article creator largely just copy/pasted this list from another website. The info will still be available on the internet if it's sent to draft. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because it is clear to me that the references now found, and added, means that the contents of this list can be independently verified. This means that the article is now suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, and now does not need to be relegated to draftspace. Rillington (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a physical museum that has old games in its collection. https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/sec/1973/Commodore-C16-Plus-4/ That proves they exist and basic information about them. They have 181 games in their collection for this system. Other museums surely exist out there as well to reference the rest. The current list has 546 games total on it. Dream Focus 07:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: I don't think there was much doubt that the games exist. A Wikipedia article relying on their database not be in interest of the museum? It appears to only list a game's cover, format, publisher, author and release year. IgelRM (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
76 of the games currently have links to their own articles. So that's enough for the list article to exist. As for the other games listed, they are there to make the list complete. If there is no doubt they exist, no reason to remove any of them from the list. Dream Focus 07:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 07:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a perfectly valid navigational list. The argument for deletion/draftification is that many of the entries are unsourced, but "was this a Commodore 16 game or not" is extremely easy to verify. Items that fail verification can simply be removed. There's no reason to delete or even to draftify this. -- asilvering (talk) 03:51, 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!} 22:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This list is complete, it has historical encyclopaedic value to anyone with an interest in retro videogames. Not only that, but games for a specific console are a widely discussed topic as a group. My question then to inclusion criteria is whether sources do likely exist. I did a spot check on some random ones on this list, and I'm satisfied that okayish sources do generally exist. For example, picking a random one from the list "Astro Plumber" I found https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/47327/Astro%20Plumber/ and nothing else after some real hard looking. I think this article is valid, but should adopt a WP:CSC of requiring citation. I'm happy to move the current page content onto the talk page after this AfD closes. BrigadierG (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs additional citations for verification, but meets WP:NLIST as video games for a console are often discussed together. Can also serve as a navigational list. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: @Liz: Recent comments don't deal with the nomination concern of database copyright, we all know it meets WP:NLIST. Could you recommend a different venue that deals with this so I may withdraw this AFD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IgelRM (talk • contribs)
WP:CCI deals with WP:COPYVIO stuff, if that's what you're asking. Diannaa would probably be a good go-to Admin on it too. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list contains no creative content, so it doesn't qualify for copyright protection. — Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: There is database right but I suppose this is more of a moral case here? Thanks IgelRM (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't re-create a database; we only offer a list of products. — Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Title, Genre, Release date, and Language are not a copyright issue. That information is on the game box. Same with Compilation, this just a list of products and what they contained. Where did the person who made the original database get the information from? Did they find a copy of every single game and copy the information from the boxes they came in? Dream Focus 11:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All you have to do is look at it. Only a single "source" was present at the time he created and published the article. It contains the same columns in the same order, and it was largely created on one massive edit. It doesn't take a genius to see he clearly plagiarized/ripped off that database website. Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UniKey

AfDs for this article:

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

This company was hardly notable in 2014 and has done nothing notable since. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you give a bit more detail about why you think the sources that are already in the article don't establish notability? Mokadoshi (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The previous AfD was for a Canadian product rather than the Florida company which is the subject of the present one. AllyD (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do I understand correctly that it should be on List of Shark Tank investments? IgelRM (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on current articles such as Techcrunch, Business Insider and Mashable. These are all reliable publications.Royal88888 (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a small blip, but a notable blip. Several good sources in the article, WP:THREE is met. Nominator needs to do more effort to justify the nom. BrigadierG (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 09:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Jyoti Rajput

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

Subject is marginally notable - has played supporting roles in a web series and a TV miniseries. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Internet, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least 2 lead/main roles in notable series make her meet WP:NACTOR imv. And coverage mentioning her in those roles exists.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't confirm if she really had lead roles, but I will assume so in good faith, in which case she would meet WP:NACTOR.Royal88888 (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR has a lead role in only 1 serial Bebaakee the role in Special Ops 1.5: The Himmat Story is not a lead role; a case of WP:TOOSOON Tame Rhino (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, no evidence of multiple significant roles. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to insist but she does have at least two significant roles (not only Bebaakee, in which she plays one of the lead roles; just read the plot summary of Special Ops... (her role is Anita)). With two films coming (JNU and Pateh), she'll probably receive more coverage this year but Draftifying this would be a pity since she already meets the requirements imv.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject clearly cannot clear the notability criteria set down by WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Suggestions to the opposite effect are variants of "she's just notable", "come on, there must be sources!" and predictions of future success. We need "multiple notable films, television shows, etc" or "unique, innovative contributions." Wikipedia is not a directory of actors. For completist, exhaustive lists one does not look in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have 2 notable web series in which she plays significant roles (lead/main)....but apparently you haven't read that part. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what little it's worth, I never offer my opinion in an AfD without preparation. On the substance of your protest: She has been once and once only in a somewhat notable creation where her role is secondary to the two protagonists. To bring it home more clearly, she's not qualified for a leading role award in it. The other appearance concerns Special Ops 1.5: The Himmat Story where she has a truly small role. And there are actors in it with more filmic appearances who rightly do not qualify for a Wikipedia article. Apparently, you are confusing significant roles with insignificant ones. But we carry on. -The Gnome (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I confusing significant with insignificant? Oh, that's really bad then. I'll think about it when recounting the 7 occurrences of her character's name in the plot. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actress had a minor role in the TV show and evidence of coverage is mostly trivial mentions. Contributor892z (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Of course, if an editor would want to work on this article in Draft space and submit to AFC for review, contact me or WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juno Doran

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

Prod was removed, fairly, as exhibition list here shows it could meet WP:NARTIST. I couldn't find sources to show it meets this or WP:GNG, however. Boleyn (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unsourced. Elspea756 (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep: I've added a couple of sources to verify basics and a residency. There seem to be several notabiliy-conferring sources listed in her "info" page such as " 2007 Shortlist magazine. “The 10 new British artists worth investing in now”. UK.", "2006 Periferica, January issue, front cover and 3 page feature in arts & culture magazine, Portugal" and "2003 The Observer, review, February 2nd", though I can't find much online. PamD 10:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found and added source re her competition-finalist self-portrait featured in book. PamD 11:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed the unsourced CV laundry list of exhibitions. The sources added (ArtFacts, aa2a.biz, and 1stDibs.com) can't be used to show notability, they are quasi-commercial sites. junodoran.com is primary. The single event of being a a finalist of "BP Portrait Award" is not enough. WP:TOOSOON --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage in this thesis is about all I can find that's close to a RS [1], just not enough. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy per WP:TOOSOON and WP:SIGCOV, as an up and coming artist, but has not yet had significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject evidently cannot meet WP:GNG. There is little to add. -The Gnome (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in the British Empire and the Commonwealth

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

Subject doesn't seem to meet the WP:NLIST as this grouping is not discussed in secondary sources. Randam (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Randam (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hong Kong, Malaysia, United Kingdom, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I cannot see the relevance of such achievment. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: in the British Empire and the Commonwealth is an arbitrary and silly grouping. Dan • ✉ 02:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A rather strange article. It has No relevance for people living in the three countries cited. --Artene50 (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning Fish

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

Basically a list of games, suggesting redirect to Get Fit With Mel B. IgelRM (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and United Kingdom. IgelRM (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No obvious target given there are multiple possible redirect locations, and no evidence it passes WP:NCORP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adidas miCoach isn't only about a game, so Fit With Mel B seems like a feasible target for WP:ATD. IgelRM (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not meet WP:THREE and it only uses primary sources. All I see is a list of games to keep the article up. It also doesn't meet WP:NCORP. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Boyanchev

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

Played only 132 mins of professional football and doesn't seem to have any WP:SIGCOV. The most recent source that I could find was Top Presa, which confirmed that he was playing in the Regional Amateur Football Groups (Bulgaria), the 4th tier of Bulgarian football, which hardly gives me confidence that SIGCOV will be found. Other sources only address him in passing, such as Marica and Blitz. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This simply doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSBASIC. No verifiable source—lacking SIGCOV. Since I can only see one source, which is a database and doesn't meet WP:THREE. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nowhere near enough professional experience to warrant notability and clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSBASIC. Whether created for reasons of vanity, promotion, or fandom, the text cannot stand as an article. -The Gnome (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Closing this as No consensus. I don't think relisting would resolve these differing perceptions of the article and newly found sources. Numerically, more editors argue that this article should be Kept but many are "Weak Keep"s (and one Weak Delete as well) signifying an existing uncertainty that lands us in No consensus Land. But please let this not be an article that is nominated annually until a desired outcome is provided. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Gomez

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claim here is that she was a non-winning competitor on American Idol, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- obviously a person can lose an Idol series and still go on to accomplish other notable things in their music career anyway, but people don't automatically qualify for articles just for competing on Idol per se -- but the only other thing here is that an independent album exists for sale on CDBaby, which isn't a notability clincher either.
And for footnotes we've got one directly affiliated primary source, one directory entry, one glancing namecheck of her existence in an Idol episode recap that isn't otherwise about her, and one deadlinked piece of "local young woman ends run on reality show" in her hometown local media, which isn't enough to get her over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only piece of proper media coverage about her that she has.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more noteworthy achievements, and better sourcing for them, than just competing in a reality show. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Halasz, Scott (2017-11-20). "Hometown Xmas perfect fit for Gomez". Xenia Daily Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-04-06. Retrieved 2024-04-06.<
  The article notes: "But Wright State University and Centerville High School alum Alexis Gomez is at her happiest when she’s on an area stage mixing it up with the crowd. ... While Idol helped Gomez get her name “out there,” she’s still working tirelessly to get her big break. She lives in Nashville and can be found spending four or five hours a day in writing sessions, and countless hours networking, searching online, and walking into meetings to get her name and face into as many places as she can. She does substitute teaching at Centerville High School when she’s home, and babysits and performs other odd jobs as well. ... She also has a modeling contract in Nashville that has helped her get into a Hardee’s commercial and a small part in a music video of a new song from country singer Tracy Lawrence, a star in the 1990s who is making a comeback."
2. Hahn, Kortny (2019-09-11). "American Idol Star lights up the Opera House". Cheboygan Daily Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
  The article notes: "Gomez got her start singing with her family band in Dayton, Ohio. Her first performance was when she was eight years old and she hasn't looked back since. Then, four years ago, she found herself on the hit TV show America Idol, which has produced famous singers such as Scotty McCreery and Carrie Underwood. ... After being on that show, she went on to start recording her own albums and going on tour, singing her songs to the public."
3. Almeter, Danielle (2018-09-07). "Wright-Patt's Band of Flight joins Alexis Gomez for country concert". Dayton Daily News. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
  The article notes: "Gomez, a graduate of Centerville High School and Wright State University, was a Top 16 finalist on Season 14 of “American Idol” in 2015. She went on to compete as a Top 10 finalist in “Nash Next” in 2016 and 2017, and has continued her singing career following these competitions by performing around the local area this summer."
4. "Gomez to sing at Versailles Christian Church". Sidney Daily News. 2015-08-26. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
  The article notes: "Gomez grew up in the Dayton area and has been singing and playing music for as long as she can remember. She plays guitar, piano and dabbles around with a few other instruments to include banjo, bass and drums. Her songwriting has been recognized in recent years as she has won a number of local contests where’s she’s been given the opportunity to showcase some of her original music. She plays locally with her band, The Mad River Band, as well as with a variety of bands in Nashville, Tennessee, on the Broadway strip."
5. "Best of Dayton 2018: Meet Dayton's Top Rising Stars". Dayton.com. Cox Enterprises. 2019-02-15. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
  The article notes: "Centerville and Wright State graduate Alexis Gomez is best known as the semi-finalist on the hit FOX show American Idol (Season 14). She also was a finalist in the Nash Next National Contest in 2016 to find the next Rising Country Star."
6. "Gomez to perform with U.S. Band of Flight". Fairborn Daily Herald. 2018-10-10. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
  The article notes: "Gomez, a graduate of Centerville High School and Wright State University, was a semi-finalist on the hit show “American Idol” (Season 14). The multi-instrumentalist went on to compete as a finalist in “Nash Next” in 2016 and 2017, and has opened for artists such as Randy Hauser, Midland, Montgomery Gentry, Cassadee Pope, Clint Black and Old Dominion."
7. Mowen Jr, Eddie (2022-08-18). "American Idol finalist plays PCHS". The Register Herald. AIM Media Management. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
  The article notes: "A former American Idol contender played the Preble County Historical Society Amphitheater last Friday night, for an excited crowd of fans of all ages. ... Gomez played for a two hours and covered major country hits from artists ranging from Johnny Cash to Carrie Underwood. The concert brought in approximately 160 guests and 80 percent of them had never been to the venue, White said."
8. "Local singer advances in music event". Dayton Daily News. 2013-07-27. Archived from the original on 2024-04-06. Retrieved 2024-04-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Dayton-area native Alexis Gomez was named winner of the 32nd Annual Texaco Country Showdown local competition, a country music talent search and radio promotion held at the 2013 Clark County Fair on Thursday evening. ... Gomez grew up in the Dayton area and has been singing and playing music for as long as she can remember. Her father, brother and sister are all musicians. As she got older, she joined the family band. She plays guitar and piano, and dabbles around with a few other instruments including banjo, bass and drums. She's won a number of local contests, where she’s been given the opportunity to showcase some of her original music."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Alexis Gomez to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Gomez competed in season 14 of the television show American Idol, which ran from 7 January to 13 May 2015. She received significant coverage in reliable sources in 2013, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2022. This demonstrates she has received sustained coverage outside of her appearance on the show. Cunard (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And precisely which of those quotes suggests that any of said coverage exists in any context that would satisfy any NMUSIC criterion? GNG isn't a raw number of footnotes, and requires the footnotes to exist in noteworthy contexts — which is why, for example, a member of parliament passes GNG on just one hit of verification that they're actually a member of parliament, whereas a city councillor can fail GNG on a couple of dozen run of the mill hits of purely local coverage that doesn't establish nationalizing significance: because GNG test sources for the context of what they're covering the person for, and not just the raw number of hits that it's possible to show. So precisely which of those hits exist in notable contexts, considering that what you've shown is entirely local coverage in and around her own hometown and none of it establishes passage of any NMUSIC criterion? Bearcat (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These quotes demonstrate that Alexis Gomez has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Alexis Gomez meets Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, which says:
Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.
1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
The guideline does not require "nationalizing significance". Alexis Gomez also meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Gomez participants who are not blocked or topic banned from AfD: Bgsu98 (talk · contribs), Slgrandson (talk · contribs), and Jpcase (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. I listed this article for deletion last year (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Gomez) because I didn't think she met the criteria for notability then, and I still don't think she does now. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When this was AfDed last time, I voted for redirecting the article to American Idol season 14. But I was on the fence about changing my vote to "Keep" on the basis of the sources that Cunard had found. Those sources show that in the years since Gomez was on Idol, she has continued to recieve news coverage, some related to her role as an opening act for multiple high profile artists. I do think that this article topic is right on the edge of notability and could be redirected, but it bothers me that articles related to American Idol finalists are often AfDed again and again even when previous AfDs close with consensus to "Keep". I respect the outcome of the previous AfD and feel that sources have been provided illustrating enough sustained coverage to more or less meet minimum notability requirements. --Jpcase (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met, RS coverage is sufficient. No topic must meet both the GNG and an SNG: if the GNG is met, a topic is notable even if the relevant SNG is not met. Jclemens (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Reviewing Cunard's list, I think source 2 is on the line, and sources 4 and 8 on paper meet GNG. The rest I feel I can safely argue are not sufficient. I am sympathetic to Bearcat's arguments regarding most coverage being local, but I cannot find a policy for me to use to disqualify any sources provided by Cunard on that basis. Because of the caveat of "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" (emphasis mine) from Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, I believe GNG is met when combining all sources together, but just barely. Because of this, WP:NMUSIC is irrelevant. —Sirdog (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Can't find enough reliable coverage and available sources don't seem proper. Bradelykooper (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep this time, but the S.S. Cunard remains at the top of his game. Emphasis on "weak", because the worst-case scenario from here is to send it off to Fandom if enough can't be done to save it here. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 10:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - we most often delete contestants on American Idol who are not finalists, unless they have had widespread success with their band and touring, as shown in significant coverage. I don't think that a few local news stories counts. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding "unless they have had widespread success with their band and touring", that is Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles #4. I agree that Alexis Gomez does not meet WP:SINGER #4. However, she meets WP:SINGER #1, which says, "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself". The guideline does not exclude local sources from establishing notability. Cunard (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't have a rule that local sources are verboten, no. We do have a rule that local sourcing isn't enough if it's all that a person has. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources fished by the Cunard allow the subject to land squarely in notability territory, per, at least, WP:SINGER. -The Gnome (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zahra Yarahmadi

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

Insufficient depth-of-coverage from third-party sources; Forbes article is from Forbes "contributor" which doesn't count toward notability. Only other is from Ilna, which by itself isn't sufficient. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Finance, Fashion, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Restored previous approved version with information and sources about fashion design only Ghazalyar (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article about Zahra Yarahmadi as it was with mentioning of her Iranian national craft arts. There is enough of coverage 77.253.185.232 (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 77.253.185.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete: Sourcing, as explained by the nom, isn't sufficient. all I could find was was this (but I don't think it's the same person) [2], trivial coverage regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same person, Zahra Yarahmadi Viictoria14 (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added 8 more links from third-party, in-depth sources to verify the article's content and Zahra's impact on Iranian fashion. Let's keep the article live. Ghazalyar (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazalyar is a single-purpose account who created this article and whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been to it. -The Gnome (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Either version of the article is just bad. The recent version was just a mix of contributor blogs (forbes/nasdaq), press releases (cbs42), and a junk PR site (dreamersdoers). All of it looked like paid placement. The author also attmpted to used a blackhat SEO blog associated with the Kivo PR farm, but was prevented by the blocklist. I won't even comment about the nature of the business that was being promoted there. The prior article, which was just restored by the author, has only three sources:

honaronline.ir - does not seem mention the subject of the article, but maybe the translation software is butchering it
dejavufashionstudio.com - subjects personal site, which was defunct by 2016 and the old copies at archive.org are pretty messed up
modefasl.ir - seems to be a very brief interview with the subject by the organizers of a fashion show?

The external link given has a longer interview, but very little on details about the actual subject of the article. I've looked for other sources, and see a large amount of paid places in the usual SEO sources. That makes it hard to find anything organic. Obviously, it's very difficult to search for Persian media, so I may have missed something. Sam Kuru (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External link is from the Iranian Labour News Agency, an independent agency with considerable authority. It contains numerous mentions of Zahra Yarahmadi's impact. Other links are older but still mention Zahra's impact, including honaronline.ir.

It is worth keeping the article live to highlight Zahra Yarahmadi's impact on Iranian fashion. Organic mentions are hard to find because of the language barrier and the old dates when the impact was made. Viictoria14 (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Viictoria14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Added 8 more links from third-party, in-depth sources to verify the article's content. Let's keep the article live. Ghazalyar (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject does not meet the notability criteria. Whether the text has been posted up for reasons of fandom or promotion is irrelevant. WP:GNG is clearly not met. Let's graciously wish, at least, better luck in the future. -The Gnome (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks in depth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article. The addition of 8 more links provides additional evidence of Zahra Yarahmadi's impact on Iranian fashion. However, it's important to acknowledge that meeting notability standards with articles dating back to 2013 is challenging. This article isn't meant for business promotion, especially since the business no longer exists. Rather, it aims to preserve the legacy of a fashion designer. Once again, upon analyzing the 8 additional links recently added, we can see that there is a range of sources, including national Iranian media resources and foreign ones, such as those from Sweden. 88.118.177.59 (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only contribution of 88.118.177.59 to Wikipedia.

Forensics on sources:

We have, in the "References" section, three inaccessible links, here, here, and here.

Under "External links," which formally do not work as sources, we have interviews, which, as well, do not qualify as a supporting source for notability, such as this, this, and this; this advertorial; one routine news listing; and this item about the Dejavu Art Cultural Institute.

Wikipedia is not the place for legacies. We either have notability-supporting sources, or we don't. This is not a directory nor some repository for any kind of information. As a matter of fact, it is not the host of haphazardly collected information, no matter how ostensibly noble the purpose. -The Gnome (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could we put a stop to the kamikaze accounts? The skies are getting crowded. -The Gnome (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 22:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Bean Games

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

Virtually a list of games, doesn't appear sufficiently notable. Suggesting redirect to Milestone (Italian company). IgelRM (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Italy. IgelRM (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No obvious target given there are multiple possible redirect locations, and no evidence it passes WP:NCORP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: please don't confuse the topic's notability with the article's text quality. This article is notable as there's multiple sources where to find information about the company. But the article is quite short right now. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struggling to follow, there is one source which is about a licensing agreement? IgelRM (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 22:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

O~3 Entertainment

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

Unsourced with a list of games. Bill Gardner should probably be mentioned somewhere, but this publisher doesn't appear sufficiently notable. IgelRM (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No obvious target given there are multiple possible redirect locations, and no evidence it passes WP:NCORP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some sources. Still searching.Timur9008 (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good effort, although not certain on notability. Trying to think of a WP:ATD. IgelRM (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found another source but that's about it [3] Timur9008 (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: It's a tough call – I found a couple more sources but I don't think any of them meet WP:NCORP. [4], [5] (stubby article at best where it isn't the main source). Nomader (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it could be converted into a list of games by O3. Or redirect to Capcom, there are some GameSpot articles support that. IgelRM (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muni Seva Ashram

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

the page has no references, only contains the mission statement, and seems very much like a promotional article. Gaismagorm (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree delete KublaiofXanadu (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree delete Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 15:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored old content to the article that was deleted with no rationale given. Still would delete, as I'm not seeing an indication of notability. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Current version seems promotional with numerous long-standing tags, but the ashram appears notable. TOI had discussed in-depth.1.Nitish shetty (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails notability requirements. If we clear out the promotional menagerie, then little, if anything, is left. Ostensibly noble purposes are irrelevant in AfD discussions. -The Gnome (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. This is not casting aspersions but don't nominate an article for deletion because "I don't think he really meets notability guidelines". There is a lot of uncertainty in a statement like that and "he doesn't strike me as notable" opens the door to editors who DO think he strikes them as notable. I'm not singling out this AFD because I see this a lot in AFDLand but if you aren't sure there is notability present or you haven't done a thorough BEFORE, then a nomination for deletion isn't called for. Really. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Petocz

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

This kid is pretty good at getting his viewpoint in the media but I don't think he really meets notability guidelines. Maybe someday. —Chowbok ☠ 19:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being young and receiving media coverage are not valid reasons for deletion. Easily meets GNG with significant coverage in Yahoo, Teen Vogue, CBS News, ABC News, and many more. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 03:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Chowbok, this is a really poor rationale for deletion. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I expressed it poorly. I'm just saying that he's only received trivial news coverage, and he doesn't strike me as notable. If I'm wrong, then !vote against it, no reason to cast aspersions.—Chowbok ☠ 01:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he has been involved in several protests and has gotten sustained, significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Bearian, do you mind having a look at the article and its recent history? There's fighting going on, BLP accusations, etc.--the article needs an experienced user. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can get this page-protected. I am no longer and admin and can't protect it. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject passes WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn in favor of a possible move as suggested by User:Toughpigs. (non-admin closure)‎ Allan Nonymous (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shabjdeed

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

Not individually notable really. I think his group, BLTNM, is notable (see the coverage on this article), but most of the coverage he has gotten seems to be WP:INHERITED from that. This article should either be deleted, or move/merged with a BLTNM article Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Palestine. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is clearly enough coverage present in the article for a page about either Shabjdeed or BLTNM. Examples: The Guardian, The New Arab, Arab News. I could see an argument for moving the article to BLTNM, but that could be handled by a move discussion. I'm not sure why this was nominated for deletion. Toughpigs (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the three sources cited here are coverage of BLTNM, not of its individual members. Not sure this establishes the individual coverage here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: I agree that a move to BLTNM might be a good result, but there is no reason for deletion here. Toughpigs (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So youre suggestion here is an uncontroversial move or a move discussion? I think either way, we would be deleting this page, so an AFD discussion seems fair. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is: if you want to withdraw this nomination, then please go ahead. If you don't want to withdraw the nomination, then you should allow the AfD process to continue normally. I would prefer the former, because the existing sources clearly establish notability, but the choice is yours. Toughpigs (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
K, I'll withdraw the nomination and move this to BLTNM, if that's OK with you? Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend having a discussion on the article talk page about a possible page move. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Is notable and has multiple references. --Acartonadooopo (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: obviously notable as the most recognizable contemporary Palestinian rapper. إيان (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn in favor of WP:TNT + move. (non-admin closure)‎ Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Hamas war in Israeli music

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

There may be a case for an article on this topic (there probably is) but this is an unmitigated mess that really isn't focusing on the issues and is just a spam list of songs. We should WP:TNT this and start over, especially given this is a WP:CTOP. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the biggest problem I have with this article is that without sources that discuss the topic, aggregating various releases into an article is SYNTH. BrigadierG (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Relevant article is an annex on war songs, as there is this article on Effects of the Israel–Hamas war which also has notoriety. I want to understand Allan Nonymous why you keep a list of articles related to Israel. --Acartonadooopo (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA BrigadierG (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see at least three articles discussing the topic as a whole: "How Israeli Music Changed After October 7" (Kveller, Feb 16), "Amid thrum of war, popular songs of rage and resilience become post-October 7 soundtrack" (The Times of Israel, Feb 20), "The spirit of Israel today: Listen to the top Israeli songs that have been released since Oct. 7" (Unpacked, Feb 23). Those articles are all in English; I expect there are a great deal more in Hebrew. This is a clearly notable subject. Toughpigs (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Want to apply WP:TNT? Go ahead. You don't need to delete the article in order to do that. 47.148.126.19 (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNTing this article leaves it a one sentence stub which feels like it might as well get deleted and recreated, especially since this is WP:CTOP territory. I would prefer if more time were taken to create an article. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting almost all content, including content with sources, two hours after nominating the article for deletion is not good practice. I would suggest that you exercise patience, and allow the AfD process to continue as it normally does. Toughpigs (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for that. I acted in haste here. However, this sort of speaks to my concerns here. WP:TNTing the article down to what we might be able to keep would be minimal. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by "go ahead [and apply WP:TNT]." I meant re-write the article from scratch, not delete everything, leaving the article as a one sentence stub. 47.148.126.19 (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you think we might not be able to keep a huge amount of properly sourced content. I agree that this page should be improved a great deal, and if you want to do that work, then obviously that would be great. But it should start with the sourced content that currently exists. Toughpigs (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sourced content that already exists is [Person] released [Song], with at most half a sentence of explanation which IMO, fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One way to apply WP:TNT would be to re-cast the article as "List of music inspired by the Israel–Hamas war", and include music from both the Israeli side, as well as from the other side. 47.148.126.19 (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a good idea, actually. I'm more than willing to withdraw this nom, move the article and create a draft with the sources Toughpigs suggested. That probably is the best way forward and I don't think it would be a terribly controversial move despite WP:CTOP. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that particular move might be controversial. I'd suggest discussing it on the talk page first. That being said, I'm really glad to hear that you're interested in improving the article. Toughpigs (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I opened a discussion in the talk page of the article. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the best option would be to withdraw this nomination, to be able to improve the article without the restrictions imposed by WP:EDITATAFD (item #4 on the list prohibits a renaming of the article during a deletion discussion). 47.148.126.19 (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True Leaf Market

AfDs for this article:

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

A previous AfD was sock-produced; turns out much of the content was likewise produced by a now-blocked UPE--and I see now that there is quite a bit of spamming done by UPEs. Notability is highly questionable, besides the promotion: Google proves the company exists, but I see nothing proving notability per GNG or NCORP. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a company it should be meeting NCORP, and we certainly don't have NCORP sources. I found product/catalog mentions, including in a number of books. However these are not significant coverage. They are just saying you can buy seeds there. Not notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, User:Sirfurboy, the history suggests it seems they paid someone to say a lot more, once upon a time. ;) Drmies (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Also can't find SigCov, burn the promo BrigadierG (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still a delete. This [6] is about a person from the company acting as a local expert on a tv program, not really enough for notability. Rest is not enough, even in what's the article is not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. An article that doesn't meet SIGCOV for verifiability! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources in the article do not significantly cover the content of the article and there is not any other sources. Dejaqo (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janco Uys

(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 to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this. JTtheOG (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Looks to fail WP:GNG, although there is the source mentioned by nom. Could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:RU/N. Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tijde Visser

(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 to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was a few sentences here about a suspension reduction. JTtheOG (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There is this, but more would be helpful for a WP:GNG pass, could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the University of East London is not independent of the subject, as it is his alma mater. JTtheOG (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:GNG relating to sources and WP:SPORTSCRIT. May be notable in the future! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:RU/N. Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe in the future WP:TOOSOON and also fails WP:GNG -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 18:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maor Ashkenazi

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

~~Reads like WP:PROMO... for another article (see Noam Cohen)~~. No real sign of notability here. Edit: The concern here is mainly a WP:BLP1E concern which is visible in the lede of the article, which includes "mainly notable for". Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Relevant article created from reliable sources https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/380226 (Israel National News), https://www.timesofisrael.com/amid-thrum-of-war-popular-songs-of -rage-and-resilience-become-post-oct-7-soundtrack/ (Times of Israel), https://www.ynet.co.il/entertainment/article/rkh4kr0zp (Ynet), https: //web.archive.org/web/20231203000349/https://glz.co.il/%D7%92%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%9C%D7%A6 (glz). In addition, the artist appeared on the most listened to lists in Israel The song was a hit on streaming and entered at number 33 on the Mako chart. At its peak, it reached number 26 on the charts. In the creation of this article I believe it, seeing the rapper Shabjdeed who does not offer much notoriety but maintains an entry on wiki without any problems. In addition, the rapper Ashkenazi is not an orphan, he is linked to the article Israel–Hamas war in Israeli music. --Acartonadooopo (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It seems clear that the Hebrew coverage is very good. "The broken heart of the Rishon LeZion rapper never stops winning hearts" (Hashikma, April 5 2024), "The experience in the shadow of death turned into a moving song to the point of tears" (Mako, Oct 28 2023), "Opening my eyes and realizing that I'm alive, I'm moving the bodies of my friends above me" (Mako, Dec 11 2023), "Maor Ashkenazi joined the 'Bad Guys' and became a singer with millions of views on YouTube" (Rishon Mynet, Jan 24 2023). A question for the nominator: Are you looking at the Hebrew sources before nominating these pages? Toughpigs (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did see the Hebrew articles you cited, the problem is that this gets us to only two sources covering the guy, where three is generally preferred, given that one of the sources (Hashikma, April 5 2024), seems to be an interview and thus is not eligible for establishing notability. In particular, the two sources appear to be local, (although the Mako article is very deep, so that may ameliorate some concerns). The remaining sources mostly seem to consist of tangential coverage, coverage of his one song, or both. Even the articles here, that do contribute to notability seem to do so in the context of his song (Haarezt, Mako). Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability has been discussed and established above. No need to repeat that. Nominator is unhappy with a statement in the intro. That's ok. THE LAST REMEDY we want in such cases is an AFD, wasting valuable community resources. Keep also by SOFIXIT and AFDISNOTCLEANUP. SNOW also applies. Arguing as above only makes the impact of this AfD worse. gidonb (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep strong. There are reliable sources here. In fact, Ynet increases the team notoriety. 181.197.40.84 (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noam's Song 2

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

Only receives tangential coverage and reads like WP:PROMO. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: let's go for part in this musical article about a recent war event between Hamas and Israel, the article is not orphan, it is linked to Israel–Hamas war in Israeli music, article where different songs that talk about the Israel–Hamas war, the kidnapped and about peace in the middle east. Same as where the article on the song Harbu Darbu by the singers Ness and Stilla is found, in addition the article Noam's Song 2 has reliable sources such as https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/19-year-old- israeli-survives-rave-massacre-hopes-to-move-to-florida (Fox) and https://www.timesofisrael.com/amid-thrum-of-war-popular-songs-of-rage-and-resilience -become-post-oct-7-soundtrack/ (Times of Israel). Now, if the article requires improvements, it can be done without going to the point of eliminating it from the roots, of course there may be errors but the errors are corrected. Now it never ceases to catch my attention that the person proposing the elimination of this article is the same one who wants to eliminate the article by Maor Ashkenazi and Noam Bettan without offering sufficient reasons.--Acartonadooopo (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Hebrew sources currently on the page seem to demonstrate notability: "Noam's Song 2 brings direct personal testimony from the massacre in Ra'im" (Ha'aretz, Nov 27 2023), "The song of the survivor of the evil party - which went viral: "Helps me deal with the situation" (Ynet, Oct 31 2023), "The experience in the shadow of death turned into a moving song to the point of tears" (Mako, Oct 28 2023). I'm not sure why the nominator isn't addressing these sources. Toughpigs (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: I made this nom under the misapprehension that this was related to Noam Bettan, an article that was under AfD for WP:GNG. Noam Cohen is a completely different person, hence one of the primary contextual factors behind this nomination was in error. I apologize about this. Frankly, having ADHD/AUTISM makes it a bit hard to keep track of who's who sometimes. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Newman

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Welsh rugby union referee, to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Wales. JTtheOG (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG following update of WP:NSPORT guidelines. Coverage of his matches and playing career, but no real WP:GNG coverage. No suitable redirect. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. All the sources are less than reliable, or literally one line. Referees do not automatically inherit notabiloity from the game and players. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sort out the piled up bodies and you find nothing of substance underneath. Subject fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Tower (song)

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

Redirect to Poland in ESC 2024 article. Song is not notable for anything other than being in Eurovision, which is still a month away. If this song does well, the separate article can be restored. - 62.165.249.180 (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator—IP created this page in draftspace and I moved it here. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 16:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The song already charted in Poland and is in Eurovision, giving it enough notability to be kept. There are at least 30 other songs that would fall under what you classify as not notable in every single Eurovision year. If you want to, you can start a discussion on if these songs are notable or not, but as a group, since they all fall under the same umbrella. I can also tell you that it'd probably not be worth the time — IмSтevan ^talk 01:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per WP:NSONG. CeolAnGhra (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ImStevan. Yeah, I know, WP:KEEPER but he said all I feel is relevant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - song have charted. Per WP:NSONG. Good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article provides some additional insight to the song and, as has been pointed out, has charted in its home country. If anything, info about Poland in Eurovision 2024 could be trimmed down since it’s already covered by the separate article, but the song seems relevant enough to deserve at least a stub. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The song has charted and has been discussed in many independent reliable sources. I don't buy the "recreate it in a month" excuse, but if that was really the intent, then the recommendation would be to draftify, not redirect. Grk1011 (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of radio stations in Kansas. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCCC-LP

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

Defunct low-power radio station with zero secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Kansas. AusLondonder (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I stand by my endorsement of the prior PROD: this stub is little more than a remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2009. You simply can't create — or even keep — a stub based mainly if not entirely on databases (and to some extent even other FCC records) today (and any insistence otherwise is no longer policy or guideline-based, to the extent it ever was). The PROD was contested to propose a redirect or merger to the list of radio stations in Kansas, but its "defunct" section does not currently include this station, and I don't really think it would be truly worth it to change that. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. DrChuck68 (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in Kansas as preferred WP:ATD. I have added a sourced entry in the Defunct section. Why would we not want this? ~Kvng (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraf Abdullah Ahsy

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

Procedural nomination following the closure of this RfD. The article was blanked and redirected in 2013 by NorthBySouthBaranof. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iraq. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty blatant WP:BLP1E article with heavy WP:BLPCRIME concerns to boot. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on WP:BLP1E or a WP:BLPCRIME that shows less sources of verifiability. Simply put, doesn't meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I would not call this a slam-dunk, but the sourcing, which is reliable, are about essentially one event his torture as a prisoner. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no there there. Subject fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Martínez (footballer, born October 1990)

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

Martínez has played only 4 minutes of professional league football and there is no sign of WP:SPORTBASIC #5 or any other valid guideline being met. My searches yielded squad list mentions in El Vigía, Esto and Soccer Today, none of which are even close to WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Several minutes in the third division falls well short of notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV as well. Anwegmann (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naser Obaid

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

Played 56 mins in a professional league but with no evidence of any WP:SIGCOV. The only Arabic-language source that is close to decent is Kooora, but it's just a routine contract renewal announcement and doesn't explore Naser Obaid in any detail. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTBASIC. Nowhere near enough professional experience to venture into notability. Anwegmann (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject tackled down by WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. -The Gnome (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meshaal Al-Suwaidi

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

Another footballer with a minor and brief career. He played only 28 mins in a professional league. The only reliable source on him appears to be Al Kass but, after translation, it's only a passing mention and not WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nowhere near enough professional experience to venture into notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV as well. Anwegmann (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. High or low, no sign of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omair Essa

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

No evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC #5 or WP:GNG. He has played 27 mins of professional football for Qatar SC (please note that this is a football club and not a national team). FilGoal is the only source that I can find but it's just a database source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC, per nom. Pretty clear to me. Anwegmann (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the reason being a blatant lack of notability. The article's creator has posted up a significant number of other texts about footballers, almost all of which have been taken down for the same reason. -The Gnome (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iyad Al-Yahri

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

Played 23 minutes at professional level before disappearing. I'm not finding any evidence of WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. Al Watan has a passing mention of a futsal player of the same name but this isn't SIGCOV in any case. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nowhere near enough experience to meet WP:GNG and fails WP:SIGCOV as well.m Anwegmann (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination due to lack of notability. Wikipedia has thankfully tightened up. -The Gnome (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 13:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Australian Aboriginal origin

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

Ehrmagerd, werds! As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and Australia. PepperBeast (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a Google book search indicates that this topic is the subject of many published works and covered in many others. I think this is a valid topic and the purpose of our article is not to provide dictionary definitions so I think the nomination is wide of the mark. Mccapra (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above. Ingratis (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable list: meets WP:NOTESAL. Added further reading to the page. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. This is a procedural close. Both the article creator and the nominator have been blocked for UPE which is a distraction from evaluating the article on its merits. No penalty for an uninvolved editor nominating this article again in the future with a thoughtful, policy-based deletion rationale. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pudgy Penguins

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

Seems like a UPE as the creator also created the article on its owner, Luca Schnetzler which is also at AfD. This is why it has been draftified to go through AfC[7] but it is again directly put back to mainspace by the creator. Since, the notability seems on the borderline and the references looks like paid placements so AfD would be the best place for it. Bhivuti45 (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the subject is, unfortunately, notable, though the fairly clear COI/UPE violation is worrying. Going through the first few sources, the BBC article is not sigcov, but the NYT and two TechCrunch articles definitely are, and the Verge and FT articles probably as well. The Yahoo Finance articles are probably not, as they read more like press releases/statistics reports. The Fortune article might be GNG-level for the article on Schnetzler himself, but as an interview is not good for this article. Overall, that's 3-5 sources that count towards the GNG, which means ~~the subject is likely notable~~. The biggest weakness is that the article does not give a claim to notability, but it one could easily be added – the newspaper articles focus on the fact that the IP has been monetized in the real world to boost the value of the NFTs, which is interesting. For a closing admin, this is a keep !vote on the sources alone, but a neutral !vote because of the likely COI violation. If an uninvolved editor were to WP:TNT and use the sources to write a new article from scratch, I would be writing a clear keep !vote. Toadspike (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the comments below, I think there is a valid rationale for discounting the NYT source as not independent, since meeting NCORP requires more attention to independence than usual. I'm not experienced with the WP:TECHCRUNCH rules, but it seems that these two articles were written by a "real journalist" and are not just blog entries by random netizens, which means they should be OK. The FT article, on second glance, doesn't seem like SIGCOV to me.

This leaves two TechCrunch articles and one Verge article to meet the GNG/NCORP. That's 2 or 3 sources, depending on how you count. I will strike my earlier opinion and say the subject is likely not notable – it would take another solid source to convince me that we should keep this UPE around. Toadspike (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why are we here? The nomination statement admits to being procedural, the article isn't so bad as to be G11 eligible, and NYT, The Verge, TechCrunch are all clearly SIGCOV, and FT is good if short. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a topic has been mentioned on well known media doesn't make it notable by default. This topic may be notable (which is being discussed here) but there are literally paid placements available for these media (for instance, upwork listing). The NYT article reads more like an opinion piece and also see WP:TECHCRUNCH. Bhivuti45 (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask you to present a proper deletion rationale instead of what-ifs and article history retellings? The applicable standards are WP:NPRODUCT and WP:NCORP. If you think some of the sources in the article are paid placements, if some of the sources in the article don't amount to significant coverage, or some of the sources in the article aren't independent, please specifically identify which sources you believe are problematic. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the NYT article has a financial interest in the subject, I don't know whether or not that qualifies it as a promotional piece or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The staff there seems to be financial editor so it’s not an promotional piece. DIV IN E 10:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traumnovelle makes a good point, thank you. Striking while I evaluate sources. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I actually did a search instead of relying on stuff in article. Here's Forbes staff [8]. It's partially interview, but there's ~3-4 solid paragraphs of SIGCOV and context each at the top and bottom. Bloomberg has a couple pieces, [9] [10]. Verge, which nobody has challenged, Forbes, and Bloomberg make three solid sources, with FT and TC falling somewhere around the SIGCOV line. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (User indef blocked) Per creator obviously but per sources too. The company is notable enough not only news sources but they are cited in many journals too if you have time to check. DIV IN E 10:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are arguing to Keep this article why did you tag it for CSD G7? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator of the article has declared UPE per here. I don't understand why he is tagging it for CSD! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while the topic might be notable for Wikipedia, something about the creator's claim could get it to speedy deletion!Dejaqo (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete promo. No independent coverage. - Altenmann >talk 05:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is also about the toy line they made [11], it's a Forbes staff member page. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Joseph (composer)

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

Such a long article, tagged for improvements since 2020, has only IMDB as references. I have tried to find something on GoogleNews but couldn't. WP:TNT. fail to meet the relevant notability guideline. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 11:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, India, and Kerala. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 11:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN composer who lacks coverage in secondary sources.Sk1728 (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 10:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Oladele

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

Rejected at WP:AFC fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and Nigeria. Theroadislong (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (but rename to S. O. Oladele; "Pastor" doesn't belong in the title). He's the head of a significant Nigerian church, with quite a few articles on Google News. But, as @A. B.: pointed out in the page history, Nigerian news sources are tricky to evaluate, so I'm not confident.— Moriwen (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Head of a major church, but rename to S. O. Oladele as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I just blocked the editor for obvious UPE/COI editing. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it's important to realise that while this article is terribly written, it can be saved, because there is SIGCOV and a multitude of reliable sources available online. I'm not interested in trying to revive it only for it to get deleted, but if it is kept I think all it needs is a bit of TLC and it'll be perfectly fine. Obviously, it needs moving, but that's not an issue for here. Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 12:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KO-AM TV

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

Fails WP:GNG; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reasonable coverage in the Korean language ("코엠TV") [12][13] (The Korea Times (Los Angeles)), [14] (a fairly major South Korean Christian newspaper), [15] (Korea JoongAng Daily)

Also feel inclined to preserve the article because it is a locally important publication for a minority community that could benefit from more advocacy and information shared about them. The article def could use a scrub up from a Korean speaker, but full disclosure I'm unlikely to do it because long to-do list. toobigtokale (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No SIGCOV or notability found after searching. Sources might be there in Korean, but I couldn't find any International RS with WIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is "WIGCOV"? Haven't heard of it before; is there anything you'd like me to look up? Keep in mind SIGCOV can be proven in any language and I've identified several sources already in major South Korean papers that would be considered SIGCOV. toobigtokale (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The editor who created this article stated they were going to work on improving it but, 10 days later, no content changes have been made to the article so I'm going with the consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Moseley (producer)

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

Not yet notable by WP:BIO or WP:GNG. He's worked with several notable people and groups, but on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. In a WP:BEFORE search I can find only passing mentions in reliable, secondary sources; the rest is music blogs and a few profiles in what look like paid placements. Wikishovel (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Music. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The last four refs are completely trivial mentions that do not support the puffy claims at all ("prominent figure", "plethora of studio albums", "wide-ranging list of clients"). The brief LA Weekly articles do not seem to mention him. Salem-news just mentions him as a speaker with no other information or context. Searching independently is complicated by an actor with the same name, but I can see several gushing articles in known blackhat SEO sources that mention this person; that kind of PR makes it challenging to find anything reliable and organic. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for not deleting but having it better written and sourced. William Moseley is aka captain chronic from the Kottonmouth Kings and Kingmaker. He defiantly should be in Wikipedia. When I was in Iraq I used to jam out to his music. Edwinwrites (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Edwinwrites (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this afd. [reply]

Can you link to any sources that support the claims in the article? Sam Kuru (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will rewrite the article and find better sources to cite. There are a few actors with his name, which makes it more difficult to find credible secondary sources. His music and movie credits are easy to find on Discogs, Allmusic, and IMDb, but I don't view those sites other than IMDB as very credible. I should have included that he was captain chronic from the Kottonmouth Kings when I originally wrote the article. It was late, and I was tired when I wrote it. I was explaining the Kottonmouth Kings and Kingmaker to a friend when I tried to look for him on Wikipedia under any of his stage names, but I could not find him. He must have another page that I need help finding. Edwinwrites (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: complete lack of SIGCOV both with the references already in the article, and from a quick scour of the internet. When you take a closer look, the provided references don't actually prove the claims made in the article, so either they are redundant or have been updated since. Let's take a deeper dive:

Ref 1 doesn't even mention him by name, only connecting the band with the record company in passing.

Ref 2 lists Moseley as the speaker at an event, but gives no information about him, and mentions him only in passing.

Ref 3 fails to mention Moseley, or backup the article's claim in any way - it does not say he executive produces it, or that it is acclaimed.

Ref 4 mentions in passing that he is the producer of the album that the article is talking about, but nothing more. It doesn't say that he's been prominent, or released any number of albums.

Ref 5 is essentially the same: a news article covering this event, with only a passing reference to Moseley.

Ref 6 says that a given artist is signed to a given record company, without mentioning Moseley. Also, one client signing cannot backup the claim that 'He has a wide-ranging list of clients signed to his company', or that it's his company in the first place.

Ref 7 is essentially the same as 4 and 5: a news article covering this event, with only a passing reference to Moseley.

Hopefully, this explains how the article has no backed up claims, and after scouring the internet for 10 minutes, I can't find anything that backs up these claims myself. The refs themselves do not provide substantial enough coverage to cut down the article's content to referenced claims, as there are none. Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. I'm not seeing how his work for a band, or in films, makes him notable. Producers, even "executive" ones, are not automatically notable. An article needs text showing his connection was notable, and significant coverage about him. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 10 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 Tangerine Dream. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard Beibl

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NBASIC. Only claim to fame is being a member of Tangerine Dream. Notability is not inherited. TarnishedPath^talk 07:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and Austria. TarnishedPath^talk 07:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tangerine Dream: Searches are not finding evidence to demonstrate the subject has attained individual notability. A WP:BANDMEMBER redirect seems a reasonable outcome. AllyD (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with a Redirect to Tangerine Dream. TarnishedPath^talk 10:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Mandela Road

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

Insufficient notability; many roads are named after notable people, but only those that are notable as roads should have articles. CoolieCoolster (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. CoolieCoolster (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CoolieCoolster (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CoolieCoolster (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

CoolieCoolster, why is this listed under South Africa when the road is in India? dxneo (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed in both South Africa and India, as while the road is in India, it's named after Nelson Mandela, so if anyone from that WikiProject has something to pitch in as to why the article should be kept, they're free to do so. Just added the template for India as well, rather than just Delhi. CoolieCoolster (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Not notable and insufficient additional information. The page fails general notability guidelines, failing coverage in multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject, in order to be worthy of a separate article. I doubt some mention of the road can even be made in Nelson_Mandela#Reception_and_legacy. RangersRus (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond W. Copp

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of the article clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (people), since there is no a single secondary WP:RS that can establish a shred of notability.

Thus, I propose the article be deleted. Veverve (talk) 07:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, Christianity, and United States of America. Veverve (talk) 07:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a large web presence for this guy, although his religious credentials and affiliation seem odd to me. He's apparently a military, law enforcement, PhD psychologist, pastoral counselor, private pilot, and HAM radio operator all in Westchester PA. I hear he's going to become a partridge in a pear tree by Christmasttime. Having said all that, I do not see that the group in which he apparently holds episcopal rank is sufficiently large for that to matter per WP:BISHOPS. Jclemens (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A reliable search found nothing, not a single valid ref on Gbook search, RS search, WP:BEFORE news, WP:BEFOE web. Not one valid thing of work. No indication of significance. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 13:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom that this is not an incident of WP:BISHOP. Lack of relevant reliable sourcing indicates lack of notability. I'm tempted to suggest a redirect, but I don't see this as a valid search subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all the reasons above, and also that the creating editor "PinkyFloyd" is a suspected sock of a rather prolific sockmaster. — Maile (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Union Dai-ichi Life Insurance

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

Fails WP:NCORP and needs more WP:SIGCOV in WP:RSP. At the present moment, the coverage provided is considered trivial. Notedolly2 (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Notedolly2 (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the major insurance companies of India..There are many reliable sources in the article to meet GNG.Attaching some of them ([16], [17], [18]). A quick Google search will also show up many other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shantypath (talk • contribs) 11:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous reliable sources have provided in-depth coverages such as [19], [20], [21]. Valeriareguera (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of television stations in Tennessee#LPTV stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WRTN-LD

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

Non-notable LPTV; some sources are questionable. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was tagged because I technically started this article by converting a redirect into a stub. At the time, it was called WKRP-LP and redirected to WDDN-LP, which had become misleading due to call sign changes, so I needed to correct the record. The station’s only claim to fame, as far as I knew, was that it took the call sign “WKRP”, which is the subject of much (fictional) media lore. Nowadays, we’d probably just add a blurb to a disambiguation page and call it a day. Since then, the station has been renamed and WKRP-LP has been taken by an unrelated station that doesn’t even acknowledge this one in a hatnote. I don’t have any particular nostalgia for this article, but I’ll take this opportunity to thank Wcquidditch, Markman1, and Tvstationfan101 for correcting and expanding the article. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 07:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of television stations in Tennessee#LPTV stations: the newer a television station is, the less likely it is that the significant coverage we now require exists. I'm only proposing a merge because the current programming information is currently missing at the list (which still reflects a previous silence); in spirit I'm really proposing a redirect as an {{R to list}} and an alternative to deletion. We simply no longer base entire articles only on FCC records, brief mentions, non-independent sourcing, or any other non-GNG sources. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ultraelectromagneticpop!. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toyang

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

Article tagged as unreferenced since 2011. GNews, GNews Archives and GSearch did not yield reliable references. Do note that you might get false positive due to the typhoons named Toyang. Alternatively, Redirect to its parent album Ultraelectromagneticpop! --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 05:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ultraelectromagneticpop!: Found some brief coverage in these three articles, but that would probably only make it mergeworthy at best, assuming what's in there is even useful. Otherwise, I saw nothing but passing mentions. Some claimed the song was a hit but without any specific data to back it up, and per WP:CHARTS we don't have a reliable singles chart for when that would've been so we can't exactly confirm that ourselves. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ultraelectromagneticpop!: Per @QuietHere. No significant coverage available for a standalone article. @T.C.G. [talk] 19:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article but also an acknowledgement that it needs some clean-up work done on it (hint! hint! to interested editors). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susan M. Landon

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

WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Not highly cited. This seems to have been created for a class project. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 05:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 05:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Reference 1 and the trade magazine cited in reference 4 (which I can't access, but seems reliable) should be just barely enough to meet GNG. Agreed that the article needs much more in the way of references. Seems like a WP:MILL geologist, but one who has been profiled by enough sources to be considered marginally notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref. 1 is a promotional PDF with her resume and favorite quotes. Ref 4 is just a blurb saying she's left the hospital after a skiing accident, and doesn't cover her or her career in depth at all. And it's not a trade magazine but the newsletter of the Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 06:10, 31 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!} 05:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are weak but Landon was president of the American Geological Institute (now the American Geosciences Institute), and thus passes WP:NACADEMIC, criterion 6, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." However, the article needs to be rewritten to address what makes her notable up front and provide reliable secondary sources on her accomplishments. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, per the academic society is persuasive, and there are other points of notability abetting it. BD2412 T 17:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Case of SIGCOV. May need clean up and sourcing. Operation save the unsourced/less sourced. Lemme take it as "just" system bias! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:38, 10 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!} 06:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's College, Negombo

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

I declined the speedy G4 because it has been 6 years since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Mary's College, Negombo. There's some coverage: 1 2 that I located quickly, so I'm bringing this here just to check. TLA^tlak 04:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as shown in the article which now has 3 good references so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view. The nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry but as far as I can tell was not blocked when this was nominated so I don't think speedy keep applies but I may be wrong, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the additional sources provided, now satisfies WP:NSCHOOL. Dan arndt (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 03:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KDHW-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Zaragoza F-18 crash

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

Nominating on behalf of PaPa PaPaRoony who wrote the following deletion rationale at WT:AFD:

The event does not have long-lasting effects whatsoever and has no notability. It is only covered by local media and there has been no lasting coverage from any international media. It was not a significant event, neither in civilian nor military aviation. As such I would like someone to nominate this page for deletion. Thank you so much. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Spain. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Commonplace crash of a military aircraft with no deaths. Cullen328 (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nomination rationale. News spikes surrounding recent events don't necessarily equate to notability. This is why we have guidelines like WP:DELAY. Appears to be a non-prominent accident resulting in no deaths or significant changes to design or operations. Dfadden (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Functionally identical to an insanely expensive single-car accident. If this was one of five F-18s in the Spanish fighter fleet, maybe it could be argued as a more impactful/notable event, but this incident doesn't seem to have had wide implications outside of the parties immediately involved. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CycloneYoris, thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia. This incident was covered by the New York Post and the associated press, other notable incidents like the 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision (which occurred January 2nd 2024) aren't really covered past January either. The pilot indicated that the aircraft suffered a malfunction, we really won't know what changes in operations, mechanical components, or procedures result from crashes after the investigation is released anyway. I suggest we wait until CIAIAC releases their accident report before we conclude if it should be deleted or not. Thomas Preuss Harrison (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas Preuss Harrison: I think I've made it clear that I opened this nomination on behalf of another editor (in this case: PaPa PaPaRoony), so your message should be directed to them, not me. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No WP:LASTING effects or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No lasting effects nor casualties. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 14:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:EVENTCRIT. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Sawyer

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTRESS. Article is cited excessively to self published and primary sources. Those few independent secondary references that are used only mention the subject in passing within cast lists and do not address the subject directly or in detail as required by GNG. No significant roles in television or film. No major theatre productions either. Seems to have worked only in minor regional theatre and touring productions. 4meter4 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Television, Theatre, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agree - the subject of this article is not notable at all, and I agree the article should be deleted. איתן קרסנטי (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seismicity of the New York City area

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

Why do we even have this topic? Earthquakes in New York are rare. Seems like WP:NOTNEWS. But even most of the sources used in this article aren't really specific to New York earthquakes. We don't even have an article about seismicity of San Francisco which probably would be more appropriate.I could see incorporating some of this into an article about Earthquakes in the eastern United States, but we don't even have that. Articles about New York do not get auto-notability, just because its New York. Rusf10 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Geography, United States of America, and New York. Rusf10 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead of deleting this article because the corresponding article for San Francisco does not exist, we should create the article about San Francisco. 104.162.205.129 (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think San Francisco is mostly covered at the articles for the named faults because it has named faults. The geological dynamics at the transform plate boundary are different than what is seen in the Northeast, where the pressure from divergent plate dynamics causes different patterns of earthquakes. The earthquakes in the Northeast are not less serious, they just don't always occur in the same place. I can focus the article more on New York specifically but I'm not seeing a reason to delete it. NeonSpectre (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While an article could be created for today's earthquake I think that may be a little NOTNEWS-y. The article was moved to this title today. The previous title was better. Other titles might be even better. It includes the historic New York earthquakes about which much has been written, and the historic earthquakes that were felt in New York. I don't really care that we don't have an article about San Francisco, but you can write one if you want to. NeonSpectre (talk) NeonSpectre (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think my point here was missed entirely, it was not that we need an article about San Francisco earthquakes, it was why does New York gets its own article when we could actually have a legitimate article about the earthquakes in the eastern Untied States which would be notable have seems to have plenty of sources, unlike this where its just using bits and pieces of other sources that are focused on a broader topic or just news articles about a particular event.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already started the process of splitting the general content about the eastern United States and focusing the article on New York ~~City~~State. I wasn't very concerned about the title when another editor moved the article to Seismicity of the New York City area. Your complaint seems to be about New York though which I don't get. There are many easy to find sources for the Seismicity of New York State. NeonSpectre (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? see WP:NOTAVOTE--Rusf10 (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? because the seismicity of any major region is notable. Page isn't entitled “New York gets lots of earthquakes," and the documented rarity of a phenomenon in a region is notable as its documented commonality. Look at Snow in Florida. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Personally, an article for "Earthquakes in the eastern United States" sounds like a great idea. But it does not currently exist. This article may be thin and perhaps could use a clean-up, but this is a situation where the issue is not that we've got an article for a specific locale, but that we DON'T have a better extant overarching article, or one for other regions (as mentioned, such as San Francisco). DarkSide830 (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a two-pronged issue, but I do think this meets the GNG, independent of the existence (or lack thereof) of articles about the seismicity of other regions.

There are scholarly sources like this, this, this, this, or this, in addition to resources like this. This doesn't even include the news and magazine articles that address the subject. If you're talking about seismicity in New York state, the reason for the AFD makes even less sense, as probably hundreds of scholarly sources exist about earthquakes in New York (e.g. the western part of the state).
Furthermore, I don't see how an article on the seismicity of NYC, or earthquakes in NYC, precludes the creation of an article about earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area or even the eastern U.S. Even if there wasn't enough material to warrant a separate article about NYC earthquakes/seismicity, it still does not prevent the scope of this article from being expanded to cover the eastern U.S.

– Epicgenius (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I understand the recent news of an earthquake that happened not too far from here, the recent spur in attention regarding to the earthquake may help improve the article. I honestly believe it could have been better if there were some work to be added and as mentioned from others, it already has met some requirements that other users mentioned. 20chances (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rarity of earthquakes in the NYC area and thus explanations for their occurrence have been the focus of numerous reliable sources (e.g., those presented by Epicgenius) that would satisfy GNG. Such an article would also provide a place to discuss earthquakes that may not be individually notable (to not run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS for each one), and could readily be expanded in scope to include the northeastern US if the NYC area is too specific. The nomination statement also appears to rely somewhat heavily on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and scope and sourcing issues are better addressed with cleanup than deletion. ^Complex/_Rational 21:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic for this article is not centered around news of latest events, even if a section is. This topic has been proved to meet GNG and is more of a scientific topic than one focused on just "earthquakes that happened in New York." VarietyEditor (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — And merge the recent earthquake article into this Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article seems based on sufficient sources and is sufficiently well-written that I don't see any immediate issue with keeping it. Just because something is rare and subject to a current news cycle doesn't mean it never met WP:GNG to begin with. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Statesmen Drum and Bugle Corps

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

Inactive organization; lacks notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Never had any sourcing whatsoever. — Maile (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that this was previously a contested PROD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Because of the earlier PROD, this AFD is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I certainly would love to keep this article, considering they won a national championship five times (which meets WP:NMUSIC #9). There is some regional coverage, but I do not know if it would be enough. At the very least, an AtD could be considered.
- Veale, Stephanie (August 31, 2008). "Empire Statesmen eye crown for their anniversary". Democrat and Chronicle. pgs. B3, B5
- Alatzas, Trif (October 2, 1991). "Empire Statesmen step in time, winningly". Democrat and Chronicle. pgs. 1E–2E
- "New York Outfit Is Champion". The Times-Tribune. August 5, 1991. pg. 5
- "Empire Statesmen tops at 'Music Under the Stars'". Evening Tribune. July 30, 2012

It would be a pity to delete it, but I do not know how far regional versus national coverage will go. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 9 for winning a mjor music competition 5 times as confirmed in the reliable sources identified above by Why?, so they should be included in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Snedeker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete: The only thing I can see for notability is a magistrate, but we don't have much on that for sourcing. [22] seems to be a fictionalized account of his life, but beyond that, there isn't much. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony

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

This is a clear WP:NOTSTATS violation of indiscriminate trivia. Let'srun (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid information that won't fit in their main article, so a spinout article is the right place to put it. This is how its done. Category:Career achievements of basketball players and Category:Career achievements of sportspeople have many examples of this. Dream Focus 01:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Orientls (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:Let'srun, you should have cited the recent precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul - a discussion you yourself created. That would make your argument stronger. Anyway, I think Carmelo's major accomplishments belong in the main Carmelo Anthony article. We're not losing anything by deleting ridiculously cherry-picked stats like "One of three players in NBA history to record 62+ points with 10 free throw attempts or less in a game." Much of this content is also out of date, particularly the Denver Nuggets franchise rankings. Zagalejo (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See User:Let'srun's unsuccessful attempt to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Jack Nicklaus. User:Let'srun appears to be on a mission to delete every career achievement article in Category:Career achievements of basketball players and Category:Career achievements of sportspeople. My question is where is the cut off and why...? - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more sympathetic to these articles if they were maintainable over time, but experience shows that they're not. You'd need a small army of NBA editors to deal with all the little details that need updating. Rankings and records easily go out of date; for example, Nikola Jokic has surpassed many of Carmelo's Nuggets accomplishments, but that's not reflected in this article. There are some things that Wikipedia will never be able to do as well as sites like basketball-reference.com.
These articles might work if they were limited to awards and truly significant records, but in most cases, we should be able to make room for such facts in the main article. (Of course, the main Carmelo Anthony page is super-bloated itself; the level of detail per season is higher than what you'd find at Michael Jordan. That's because people wrote Carmelo's career section while his career was ongoing, rather than taking a retrospective approach.) Zagalejo (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. I just wanted to add that there are some things basketball-reference (and all others) will never be able to do as well as Wikipedia on sports lists. When done right, career achievements is a collection of pertinent info from a variety of RS sources that no single non-Wiki source has access to. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Carmelo's achievements are not significant enough, and he is constantly falling down the franchise record rankings. However, the rest of the NBA players on Category:Career achievements of basketball players are a keep vote from me except Dwight Howard and Dennis Rodman. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am very conflicted on this. List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony#Career-highs is interesting, does not fit on the main page, and never requires updating. I only said Delete because Dwyane Wade's page was deleted which I do not necessarily agree with but for the purpose of fairness I say this should as well. If criteria was established as to what should go on these pages and what should not then I think it could work for the Top 75 all-time. IMO if player is arguably Top 10 (or Top 75?) all-time he qualifies for a page. Players outside Top 75 do not deserve their own. Here is the NBA’s 75th anniversary list, Dwight is not on it but Carmelo, Chris Paul, and Dwyane are on it. If any need updating, I can assists with that.WP:NOEFFORT is not a good enough reason to remove all of this time-consuming volunteer work. Before AfDing for this reason, please put an update section box at the top of these articles, wait a couple of years, see if anyone helps, and discuss on the Talk page. Thoughts? - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't mind the career highs table (assuming the dead link can be replaced). But I'd still rather not encourage these articles. As a data point, look at List of career achievements by Russell Westbrook. That has been tagged for a while, and the career stats table at the top is obviously out of date, but no one has responded. I don't think most volunteers have the patience to work on these articles. It's tedious and unfulfilling work. I think we just need to be realistic. It would be better for people to focus on the main player articles, rather than ultra-detailed spinouts. You probably could fit the career high table in the main Carmelo Anthony article if we tighten up the prose there. Zagalejo (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get it, but it's unfortunate for the creators of these articles who expect other editors to follow their lead. I think we should aim to keep these articles for those in the Top 10 all-time discussion which can vary quite a bit from source to source. Carmelo, Russell Westbrook, Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade, Dennis Rodman are not in there as far as I can see. Here is ESPN's Top 10 rankings and The Athletic's. Since the Top 10 talk is such a focus of emphasis for the media, I think ultra-detailed articles are relevant to the large audience trying to understand who is right in their "hot takes". FYI List of career achievements by Michael Jordan has received 6,100 views in the last 30 days, so people are certainly looking. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...it's unfortunate for the creators of these articles who expect other editors to follow their lead: Consensus can change, not that there's evidence that there was a formal consensus that these pages were ever needed. As early as 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwyane Wade was a "delete". As the nom said, WP:NOTSTATS, and WP's purpose is not to recreate basketball-reference.com's database or compile tidbits sourced to AI site statsmuse.com. There's a reason articles have an "External links" section.—Bagumba (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwyane Wade (2nd nomination). WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, indiscriminate mentions of being one of X players to achieve a trivial statistical cross section. Major, defining achievements should be captured in the main bio.—Bagumba (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Also fails WP:NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing The page is a pure stats dump.—Bagumba (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"indiscriminate mentions of being one of X players to achieve a trivial statistical cross section", whether it is WP:Trivia is a matter of opinion. For all we know there is significant RS coverage discussing these "one of X players" achievements. I hope these AfD's do not spill over into WP:SPINOUT articles for Top 10 players. They are justified and appropriate IMO. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I found The Athletic article saying "only player in NBA history to score 50 points without a single point in the paint". This info is not WP:OR and these records are being talked about. I'll leave it at that. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

whether it is WP:Trivia is a matter of opinion And this discussion is about our opinions. For all we know there is significant RS coverage discussing these "one of X players" achievements: Per WP:ONUS, feel free to source them and gain consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Instead of trying to go by similar pages that were kept or deleted, it would be useful to go back to the relevant P&G.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the nom cited WP:NOTSTATS, and my !vote referenced WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:UNDUE. —Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS, I agree with what has been said before. Specific elements commented on by reliable sources may be eligible for a merge, but I think everything of that sort that is relevant is already in the main article. BrigadierG (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I thought most of these pages have already been deleted until I checked Category:Career achievements of basketball players. Now I see that most of those pages should be nominated for deletion since they have not enough references or do not have any at all. – sbaio 05:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Smash

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

Contested WP:PROD. The article lacks secondary reliable sources to satisfy the WP:GNG. A quick WP:BEFORE yields no reviews, which is unfortunately strongly suggestive of non-notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. There's some game guide stuff out there, [23] [24] [25], but like a lot of mobile games, it suffers from the problem that mobile games aren't extensively reviewed. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG, no sources are RS nor count towards notability. Only non-primary source lists no author, holds no significant coverage, and is not an RS. There exist some (read: minimal, scant) possible sources online, but ultimately these are guides and walk-throughs rather than significant coverage. WhoAteMyButter (🌷_talk│🌻^contribs) 01:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : As per above conclusion.Shah Of Nowhere (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG in a big way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with everyone here as it does fail WP:GNG. Don't even get me started on the reception. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best I could find: Unity case study, hardcoredroid.com (uncertain reliability) IgelRM (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Solar Smash is a really popular game, and this article needs to be fixed, but I do not think it should be deleted in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arhan D (talk • contribs) 04:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arhan, you may like to take a look at the general notability guideline, and particularly rebuttals against something being popular making an article notable to understand the issues raised in this discussion. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt McCoy (worship leader)

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously unfootnoted article about a musician and church leader, and added two reviews of one of his albums. I have not found other coverage to add. I am not sure if one of the publications, CCM Magazine, is a reliable source, as its About says "The information in the post above may have been formatted to suit this website, but is not necessarily material originally created by, or exclusive to CCMmagazine.com", and no author is given. In any case, based on two reviews I do not think that the subject of the article is notable under WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Tacyarg (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Religion, Christianity, United States of America, and Illinois. Tacyarg (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: all I can find are his website and various podcasts or streams featuring him. Good at promoting himself, I don't see musical notability though. Oaktree b (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet any criteria under WP:NMUSICIAN. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find enough reliable coverage and available sources don't seem proper.Bradelykooper (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. Whenever there is a BLP with controversy over political or religion, I want to see very significant coverage. Does not pass based on WP:NBAND, without evidence of touring or charting. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 10 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.