Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 26	May 28 >

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!} 23:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old Hill, Indiana

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

Appears to be a farmstead. Searching finds a cemetery that's in Brazil (IN), an old hill, and various juxtapositions, and lots of real estate hits, but nothing whatsoever that says anything I can clearly attribute to this place. Mangoe (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did some editing and adding of sources. I would conclude based on what I've seen so far that "Old Hill" is really just a place name, though at times rural residents may be credited as living in the "Old Hill" area. It is a known local topographic feature/location. Since it appears as a place name on USGS maps, it creeped into GNIS and later wikipedia.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Milowent is correct, geo feature.James.folsom (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a farmstead or neighborhood. There are a few sources, but nothing significant. See also my standards. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NGEO. Contributor892z (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Halliday

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of squad announcements etc, but not really enough for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Has not played top club level which is Super Rugby. LibStar (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legendele Olimpului

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

This article lacks sufficient notability and reliable secondary sources to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Despite being a children's book, the article does not provide significant coverage in independent sources that demonstrate its impact or importance in literature. Additionally, the article has been tagged for multiple issues, including being an orphan and needing more citations, indicating persistent problems that have not been addressed. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and History. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. SOS

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Enahnced some, but recreation of previously deleted subject. Mikeblas (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for want of WP:SIGCOV and a WP:BLP violation: WP:SALT. First off, there is a total lack of significant coverage. Producers are not automatically notable, and I just don't see much of anything in secondary sources. We have long ago agreed that producers are run of the mill, and I don't see that consensus changing soon. In terms of content, much is placed on his divorce; there is no evidence that his ex-wife and children are notable or public figures. This is a second creation after deletion, which warrants a creation protection, absent very good reasons. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 08:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Throne Wishlist

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

Only coverage is press releases/funding announcements. No secondary coverage. Probable COI. BrigadierG (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Texas. BrigadierG (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 08:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wuteh Vakunta

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

Non-notable professor. I can't find a Google Scholar for him; ResearchGate indicates he's only been cited 22 times (which seems too low to meet WP:NPROF). A search for sources only turns up profiles for him and sites hawking his books. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Language, Poetry, and Cameroon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Although he does not seem to satisfy WP:NPROF, subject may possibly satisfy WP:AUTHOR (C3). I do see a few reviews of published works; not sure if there is enough, though. Qflib (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I am certain the article meets WP:AUTHOR but that isn't enough when they aren't verifiable. This can still be notable in the future. For now, WP:NPROF and WP:SIGCOV issue. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not meet WP:NPROF. Article's only use seems to be listing subject's various publications.Boredintheevening (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Raymond (pianist)

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

Nothing on this guy but articles about a student of his, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article was unsourced, and still requires some cleanup and improvement, however the subject is notable under GNG and WP:NMUSIC, particularly criteria 1 and 9. I added a few sources found quickly from a google search. A deeper search may reveal more. Bgv. (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A competition is only "major" enough to fulfill NMUSIC #9 if it gets WP:GNG-worthy media coverage that reports its winners as news, and is not "major" enough to pass that criterion if you have to rely on its own self-published press releases because third-party coverage treating it as newsworthy is non-existent. So he hasn't been shown to pass #9 at all, and with only one real media source about him he has not yet been shown to pass #1 either. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see one article that may satisfy the WP:GNG criterion, however, we'd need more sustained coverage in order for it to actually pass WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the concern of competitions not being major, I only now noticed that the citation in the article is to the subject's self-published website, however the wins have been confirmed by other sources (e.g. [1], [2]). I'll digress that the competitions cited are not "major" enough to have their winners make the mainstream news, however the status of winning of (specifically) the Stepping Stone Competition has been cited by mainstream news sources in their determination of endorsements for young musicians (e.g. [3], [4], and less significant coverage [5]). Focusing more heavily on NMUSIC #1 and the GNG, please see 1 and 2 above, along with this news article, and this inclusion of his biography backing the claims of notability from the Quebec Contemporary Music Society. For what it's worth, his discography was aired on the radio, as demonstrated here, and here. I will plug a few of these into the article, hopefully by the time anyone is reading this. Bgv. (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Pianist are usually argued to be non notable but not here. Winning awards per WP:ANYBIO and performing at notable places makes the article individual notable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are only 2 references that are substantially about him: The first Artsfile one and the WaPo one. Both of these, however, are reviews of specific performances and say little about him "biographically." The big problem is that most of the rest of the citations are not independent. The Forest Hill one is taken directly from his web site, as is the SMCQ one. Many of the others are mere name-checks, such as him named in the last CBC reference merely in passing. So I don't find anything independent to support a biography. Lamona (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Marginal. It's unclear if he's a full professor. The coverage, as noted, is not quite significant as most editors would define it. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 08:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grampian Flyers B.C.

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

This may meet a little notability but in the current state lacks sources. My research showed they are trivially mention in news articles and those, doesn't seem to be notability. Per SE, doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Redirect can also be better if there is any. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Basketball, and Scotland. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any potential redirects?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 08:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raza Development Fund

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Non-notable CFORK. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Subject homepage, fails WP:IS	1. "Homepage". Raza Development Fund. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
Database profile, appears to be self sourced, fails WP:SIRS	2. ^ "Raza Development Fund, Inc. - GuideStar Profile". www.guidestar.org. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
Service provider page, appears to be self sourced, fails WP:SIRS	3. ^ "Raza Development Fund, Inc". Housing Partnership Network. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
Primary, fails WP:IS	4. ^ "Annie Donovan". Raza Development Fund. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
From prnewswire, promotional routine news, fails WP:SIRS	5. ^ UnidosUS. "Raza Development Fund (RDF) names Annie Donovan as its new President and CEO". www.prnewswire.com. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
Linkedin profile, fails WP:SIRS	LinkedIn". www.linkedin.com. 2023-05-10. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. No objection to a consensus redirect/merge of properly sourced content to UnidosUS (I would have boldly done so but it would have been reverted). // Timothy :: talk 22:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a lot of knowledge about english wikipedia guidelines. If it can't stay it can be deleted ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. אקסינו (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Datadog#Acquisitions where it is mentioned Star Mississippi 01:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HDIV

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

Procedual nomination following the closure of this RfD. The article was proposed for deletion, then blanked and redirected by 0xDeadbeef in September 2022. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Websites. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pings for Jay, Shhhnotsoloud, and Tavix, who participated in the previous discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to Datadog as it was acquired by them. Currently the article lacks proper citations.Hkkingg (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't mentioned in the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There now seems to be a mention of HDIV at § Acquisitions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Alberts

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. I'm thinking he goes by a nickname because I found an astonishingly low amount of hits. JTtheOG (talk) 23:17, 27 May 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) 23:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Cook

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 23:11, 27 May 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) 23:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of coverage, but I'm not sure there's enough to suggest a WP:ATD pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Levitt

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

Originally created by some pro-Israeli sock puppet in 2008 that has since been perma-banned? Very sporadic updates since then. Cannot find any independent secondary sources (Washington Institute is main source of all the info, his employer, and is also a pro-Israeli thinktank?), and this reads more like some kinda WP:RESUME than anything else. I cannot think of any good way to salvage this without useful secondary and independent sources. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Terrorism, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:Prof#c1 on GS cites. Also WP:Author for books on counter-terrorism. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC). Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
all the sources saying he is an important figure in counterterrorism are from his own books or the thinktank he is a part of User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The books alone are not enough but I found and added plenty of reviews (11 for 3 books), giving him a pass of WP:AUTHOR. I agree that there is also a case for WP:PROF#C1. The nominator's interjection of politics into the rationale for deletion is also troublesome. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for edits and review citations.

i didnt see matthew levitts citation count actually, kinda agree on wp:prof 1 now that he is notable, so i kinda change to weak keep maybe. not sure about wp:author.

pointing out the politics is not troubling i think. his page reads very much like a wp:resume and does not indicate that the think tank he works at has been identified by both nytimes and others as both founded by aipac, run with money from aipac donors, and very much proisraeli.

much of his work reflects this bias (i found his article by seeing folks uncritically cite his work as bedrock truth on wikipedia pushing that muslim brotherhood/hamas had infiltrated many if not most muslim orgs)

much of it still reads like a wp:resume i think, especially as article takes significant amount of info from the thinktank. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also for future help in determining the notability of these types of articles, how did you find such book reviews?

honestly asking, the first few page of google search when i was looking were all just his own work or the think tank, didnt know where else to search or find other sources and would love new ways to find sources for articles User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found many of them using a JSTOR advanced search with his name as a quoted string, checking the box restricting the search results to reviews. With that as a base, I filled in some more searching Google Scholar for works whose titles included the title of the book. E.g. search string intitle:"Hezbollah: The Global Footprint of Lebanon's Party of God". —David Eppstein (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on WP:AUTHOR grounds. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Convinced by arguments and citation count (didn't see them). Still think the article could use some work. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nassim Nasr

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

This article appears to be well-sourced but none of them get the subject over the hurdle of WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. A quick source analysis: Source 1 and 2 are WP:INTERVIEWS and thus primary sources. Source 4 is an official corporate bio and thus also a primary source. Source 5 is a paid press release. Source 6 is a gallery website and thus a primary source. Sources 7, 8 and 9 are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs that do not provide WP:SIGCOV. Sources 10 and 11 appear to provide significant coverage, but it is actually marketing material. The publisher--Artoze--describes itself as an "International Online Art Gallery ... We excel in creating strategic art events to boost the visibility of the brands helping them gain more footfall and catalyzing the business growth." This is a marketing platform, not a reliable and independent source. The final source left is 3, Slimi Magazine, whose independence is uncertain. (Other articles seem to be directly provided by the artists profiled.) Even if Slimi works for GNG, more secondary, reliable, independent sources are needed. There in particular appears to be no independent, secondary sourcing for the claims about Nasr's artistic style and approach. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Lebanon. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The claim of pioneering "Expressive Color Minimalism" doesn't mean anything, because Expressive Color Minimalism is a made-up term. Diverging from the conventional gallery system, Nasr donates many of his works to schools and charitable causes. with a reference to a local arts listing. Fails WP:ARTIST --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 20:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Polniš

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

Young Slovak footballer who just started his career on the unremarkable second tier. Fails GNG in that a search yielded no significant and/or independent sources whatsoever. Contested draft. I don't see this being more notable in 6 months time. Geschichte (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no decent coverage found. The only source giving him more than a passing mention is FC ŠTK 1914 Šamorín, which is obviously not independent. Creator has a possible WP:COI as, in their whole time here, they have only written about Polniš who, on the face of it, seems to be nothing more than your average semi-pro youth footballer. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. He may become notable one day, but nothing indicates at the moment. Svartner (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Poorly formatted and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also is there a WP:COI with user Pplbk with this article and the other article FC ŠTK 1914 Šamorín... Something feels iffy. Govvy (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ladislav Nagy (footballer)

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

Slovak footballer who played 3 minutes on the first tier before dipping into the second tier and then disappearing. Fails GNG in that there is a lack of significant and/or independent sources for a biography. Geschichte (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Possibly WP:TOOSOON... Anwegmann (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Michaels

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG, with no significant secondary coverage in RS. The best I could find in a WP:BEFORE search was a few interviews in essentiallysports.com, and the rest is social media, press releases, and some coverage in WP:THESUN and WP:DAILYEXPRESS. Strong aroma of UPE here, including this addition today of a selfie, unavailable on the source claimed at Commons.

Please note that the first AFD was about a writer and filmmaker, and not about the football businessman. Wikishovel (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Football, and England. Wikishovel (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Obviously promotional. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Almost feels like self-promotion. Anwegmann (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does feel somewhat promo, agree with nomination, this should be a straight up delete. Govvy (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Maiden's lyrical themes and inspirations

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

This is 95% original research (borderline WP:FANCRUFT) that has a handful of "sources" that themselves are largely poorly-cited pop website listicles, which only support a small portion of the claims here. The Iron Maiden#Musical style and influences section itself is much-better sourced and comprehensive, and sufficient without this page. ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Philosophy, Poetry, Film, Music, History, and Mythology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary and short spin out. This sort of content should be covered at Iron Maiden#Musical style and influences. Very little of it is sourced and not redundant to the main article, so no need for a merge, and I don't feel like it's a particularly likely search term either, so probably doesn't require a redirect either. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it should be covered in this section of the main article. As an author, I think someone should try to use the content from may art to create something correct. RALFFPL (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Far too many of the entries in your article are unsourced, and without a source, would violate WP:NOR. Until this is addressed, it can't be placed in the main Iron Maiden article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary and pretty trivial. Shankargb (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but agree with User:Sergecross73 that the literary and historical themes should be covered on the band's main page, I will try and make a start on that today. Orange sticker (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of the article I improved the content, added sources, links, data, and more details. Originally I planned to add to the main article info about the lyrics of Iron Maiden - mainly describing the inspirations and connections between their music and dramaturgy and lyrical content. The problem is with the band's catalog which contains numerous songs based on historical events, films, novels, etc. You may check my article and choose fragments to use them. And referring to the deleting process - if we have a bunch of info about the lyrics on the artists' arts on Wikipedia, so - why can't I write a little about IM ones? Not interesting content (?) for whom and why? I can not understand this kind of limitation and restriction policy. Regards RALFFPL (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the article Please read WP:OWN as you cannot assume ownership of an article whether you created the article or not. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's about semantical context. I called myself an "author" regarding the fact I have started publishing the content, nothing less and more. Ownership is no reason, I'm just a member of the community and trying to develop some articles on Wiki. Referring to the subject of Iron Maiden lyrics I try to improve the article. Regards RALFFPL (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary and clearly not sufficiently useful or encyclopedic information to justify preserving the page history by redirecting. Psychastes (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely WP:FANCRUFT and per Sergecross73's reason. HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A topic like this certainly seems like something that could justify an article depending on how much research academics have poured into the subject (for example I'm sure a dedicated Beatlemaniac could make one for said band), but in this case I don't think the article justifies itself with enough quality sources.★Trekker (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I was skeptical at first but the subject may be notable. See [this book by Routledge https://books.google.com/books?id=DOoGDAAAQBAJ]: "...the more widely disseminated (and hence culturally significant) work of major bands such as Iron maiden...Campbell questions whether the traditionalism inherent in adopting classical paradigms undermines the ostensibly radical ideology adopted by some bands, or whether for others it simply underlines what is a surprisingly conservative standpoint"...I'm convinced by this that the subject is notable even if the article is not ready for mainspace. Ben Azura (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think said article would look anything like this though. It's not currently an article, it's nothing but unsourced example bloat and name dropping. It reads more like something you'd read on a fansite or fan wikia. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sergecross73. It feels like it would be more suited for the Iron Maiden fandom wiki. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THX for your opinion, I have improved the art a lot. I think the article referring to the lyrical content of every artist which we use to describe as "legendary" is worth publishing. RALFFPL (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I don't suggest this is an easy deletion, but as it's currently written, this is an essay, not an article. Userfy? Bearian (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a typical example of Iron Maiden fancruft which has subtly proliferated on wiki. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 20:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aluko Damilola Grand SADG

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. This is literally a non-notable subject, no sources whatsoever to establish notability. Spammy, promotional puffery, this should probably be Speedy deleted. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Speedy per Vanderwaalforces. The article is purely about a non notable person that doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines for entry. Promotional self creation! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satish Awasthi

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

Non-notable promotional nonsense. None of the sources in the article confer notability, most of them are either paid-for promotional pieces or listicals. Might potentially even be UPE or DUCKY. Sohom (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astrology, Internet, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astrology, Internet, and Uttar Pradesh. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11. Mccapra (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think this subject is notable under WP:NBIO from anywhere and it's references seem to be unreliable to me but I think article is only creating for a purpose of conflict of Interest. ᗩvírαm7 • [@píng mє], 01:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable I found that he has 2 YouTube Channels with million’s of Subscribers and but there are something missing in reference you can check after that it will not claim wiki guidelines please delete. Metaxtech (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited your comment to correctly format it. (You used {{notable}} which creates a template and not a bolded !vote). Regarding your statement, the number of youtube followers does not have any relation with the notability of a person (please review WP:ENT and WP:GNG both of which need to satisfied for the subject to be notable). Sohom (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G11. Promotional nonsense. jellyfish ✉ 19:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The author of this article is currently blocked for using multiple accounts to socking on Wikipedia. Happy editing ᗩvírαm7 • [@píng mє] 17:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy: Created by a blocked contributor and promotional. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero reliable sources, which are required for a WP:BLP. The current consensus is that even 8 million followers is not enough for automatic inclusion at the English Wikipedia, although I would be more lenient. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 20:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bukit Jalil National Secondary School

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

Non notable school fails to satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations see WP:NSCHOOL. Existing sources show passing mentions only and a before comes up with nothing of note. Theroadislong (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Malaysian article, you don't search Bukit Jalil National Secondary School which is the non-native name and expect to find a lot of things. As per the Wikipedia article, the school is commonly referred to as 'SMK Bukit Jalil' and 'Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Bukit Jalil.' Here are the materials/citations that I've not put and put some are in Malay and some are not. In the mean time the article has been moved to draft.

N niyaz (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have clearly misunderstood what we mean by significant coverage, all of the above are passing mentions only. Theroadislong (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no sign of notability of any flavour. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; notability nowhere near established. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; searching for further coverage under the "commonly referred to" names referenced in the first comment here doesn't dredge up anything supporting notability either. Chiselinccc (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Šimon Horniak

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

Now, this is a Slovak footballer who seems to fail WP:GNG massively. Had a first-tier career that lasted one or two minutes, and nothing in the way of biographical sourcing. Geschichte (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I can't find any coverage of him on Slovak news websites. SME sub-website My Nitra is only a passing mention in squad announcement, and very unlikely to coverage due to being paywalled. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Air Dravida

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikilover3509 (talk · contribs) attempted to start a second nomination for this article, but wound up adding it on to the the first nomination. Their rationale follows:

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Even the website of the promoter Zircon International which is included as an external link draws a blank.

This article did survive that prior AfD from 2010 (and a contested PROD before that), but both of the "keeps" from then warned that the article needed to be significantly improved to avoid renomination. It has since been tagged as a potential WP:CORP failure—which might be the more relevant guideline here—since 2019. All that being said, my involvement is mainly procedural and I have no real opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Aviation, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This talks about the airlines in general at the time it was to launch [6], but that seems to be the extent of coverage. Delete for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it was just a project which died before the launch. Charlie (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Deb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Jupiter

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

AFC draft moved to mainspace by author. Sources don't show notability, redirect to Radio Caroline? IgelRM (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. IgelRM (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I don't think Radio Caroline is the right answer. I think this requires work to show notability, since kt fails WP:NCORP currently. Draft space is a place to work with little pressure 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify - This article does not speak for itself. It does not explain to a reader why the station is notable, and Wikipedia is written for the readers. This has been a contested draftify, so if this article is draftified here, it may not be moved back to article space except via AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To anyone in 2024, this is a bog-standard Internet oldies station run by who are now older personnel. This is no different from a known commercial radio station keeping an older staff member on Saturday mornings for listener goodwill so they don't get 'Cruel megabroadcaster fires innocent DJ for being too old' headlines. The N for Radio Caroline cannot extend to something that was created well after its existence ended as a nostalgia appeal. Nate • (chatter) 18:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nate - my thoughts exactly. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO with no coverage in RS. This is a different Radio Jupiter [7], nothing else found. I don't think the redirect as suggested would help. Oaktree b (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promo piece on a 'radio station' with zero evidence of notability. Do not draftify, as there has been plenty of time for the necessary sources to be gathered, and if nothing has turned up in the past few years, I can't see that suddenly changing in the next few months. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator‎ since DRV for previous AfD is still open. Owen× ☎ 16:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Connecteam

AfDs for this article:

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

Sourcing does not meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Previous AfD significantly manipulated by editors now blocked for spamming. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging previous contributors Alpha3031, thetechie and the closer BoraVoro. 4 of the previous Keep !voters now appear to have been blocked for likely COI / sock/meat puppetry. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies I reopened this before noticing it was at DRV. Probably no real harm as it was heading towards an early renomination anyway but no issues if someone wants to close this early. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Foster III

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

Members of the San Diego City Council or of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors are not presumptively notable based on WP:NPOL. They have to pass WP:GNG or at least WP:ANYBIO. This subject lacks in all, the sources presented in the article and from WP:BEFORE can not be used to the establish notability of this subject based on GNG. Sources are either lacking in independence or mostly in significant coverage of the subject. Most are WP:ROUTINE coverages which provide nothing but an announcement of Foster winning the seat or what have we, while some are result sheets, etc. Nothing to establish notability here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could be deleted as WP:ONEEVENT - all we have is that he ran for a local office and won. The only personal details are from non-independent sources (his campaign web site). Everything else is routine local election stuff, and those articles are quite short with little information about him. Lamona (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I am sympathetic, I think the consensus is that the city of San Diego isn't big or prominent enough to convey automatic notability to all its public officials. He won with less than 9,000 votes. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. ^Complex/_Rational 16:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome K. Moore

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this BLP about an artist working in comics and animation, and added a reference. I cannot find more coverage, however, so do not think he meets WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Visual arts, Comics and animation, and Maine. Tacyarg (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a single source in the article, and my searches are not finding anything else. Does not meet WP:ARTIST at this time. Elspea756 (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a real shame that the folks who edited this article didn't give any indication of where they got the info. I can't find anything but name-checks and most of those are in bibliographical listings (e.g. names of those who contributed to specific comics). Lamona (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding any references for the biographical information presented in the article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Tonga national rugby union players as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 01:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soane Asi

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

Can't find references on Google. Doesn't meet WP:SPORTBASIC Shinadamina (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Rugby union. Shinadamina (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only reliable information for him is on this ESPN page, that provides a mediocre amount of information. Other than that I couldn't find any reliable sources on him. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found some more information KoreanDragon (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ESPN is about the extent of coverage. Some unrelated linkedin posts, nothing else for notability I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Linkedin profile stated that it was him, as seen in the info.

"My name is Soane Asi being working as Lab Technician for Winstone for 23 years migrates from the Kingdom of Tonga 1987 after the very first Rugby World Cup where I represent Tonga I play as an Utility Backs from 2nd Five eight to Full Back but I play my first game on wing against Canada.

Back Home I work for the ministry of Works as a Technical Officers for 8 years. Graduate with a Civil Engineering Diploma on Road Constructions 2 years Study on Ministry of Works Courses." KoreanDragon (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tonga national rugby union players Some sourcing exists, but difficult to judge whether it would pass WP:GNG with offline coverage, redirect is a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 01:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico Challenge (college baseball)

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

Baseball tournament scheduled for 2025 fails WP:GNG. All sources are press releases from the participating teams or sponsor organization. The only media coverage ([8], [9]) is churnalism regurgitating the press releases and cannot support notability per WP:NEWSORG. Until there is sufficient WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources, it's WP:TOOSOON for this article. As an AtD, I propose to draftify, since I expect there will be coverage next year closer to or after the event. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Baseball, and Puerto Rico. Owen× ☎ 15:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. Current coverage is limited to routine announcements. Frank Anchor 14:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jalen Schlachter

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

Non-notable football player. Sources are all standard run-of-the-mill sources so failed GNG, never played in the NFL, pedestrian college football carer. Wizardman 13:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Wizardman 13:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage found for this person; playing college football alone isn't notable. Not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for the subject to meet the WP:GNG, only some routine mentions in articles about other players. This [[10]] may be WP:SIGCOV but it is paywalled. Let'srun (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some coverage is available here, here, here, here, and here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that coverage but it all fails WP:YOUNGATH in my opinion. Other minds may differ. Let'srun (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Md Moin Khan

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

Bangladeshi military officer fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. No WP:SIGCOV in any WP:SIRS; coverage cited in article (and found in BEFORE search) is WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete I can only find trivial mentions of the subject in English language sources but would like to know whether there is anything available in Bengali before voting. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches in Bengali found the same sort of thing as what is available in English - press releases announcing promotions/assignments or mentioning in passing that he inaugurated a golf tournament.[11][12][13] No significant coverage to justify an article. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Ontor22 (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WorldBruce. There is not enough coverage. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only WP:TRIVIALMENTION and fails GNG-- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 11:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Despite the lack of explict !votes other than two keeps, the keep arguments are not strong. As commenters touch upon, we need to know more about those possible sources. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Italy, Tirana

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

Article is based on 1 primary source and merely confirms it exists. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Albania, and Italy. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like many other embassies, this one occupies an architecturally significant building. The corresponding article in the Albanian Wikipedia at sq:Ambasada_Italiane_në_Tiranë, provides some information abut the building's status as a Cultural Monument of Albania that I have added to the English article. Several photos of the embassy are on Commons at commons:Category:Embassy_of_Italy,_Tirana. It is always a good idea to check an article's counterpart in the Wikipedias of other languages before nominating it for deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Eastmain, the fact that other languages have content on a subject does not mean that it is notable. I am not able to read AR and ARZ Wikipedia (I'm not even sure which languages they are without looking it up) but it looks like they may have more sources. I was not able to find any sources with a quick search but one may have to use other languages or look up a different phrase. ✶Qux yz ✶ 13:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Listed cultural monuments will have documentation on file with the corresponding authorities; I see no reason to believe this one wouldn't. I can't read Albanian but some Gsearch and Gtranslate brings up at least a few mentions of this building. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here's the listing: https://iktk.gov.al/site/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Vendim-nr.-32-date-07.02.2023-Ambasada-Italiane.pdf Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps redirect to the "Cultural Monument of Albania"? Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moxie Software

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Annoyingly the company appears to have changed its name several times (previously BSG Alliance and nGenera), so an AfD rather than a PROD just to make sure I'm not missing anything. Best sources I could find: [14] [15] [16]... "not great" would be an understatement. – Teratix ₵ 07:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, California, and Texas. – Teratix ₵ 07:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 08:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Shandermani

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NPROF, and not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can’t read Farsi but he may be a GNG pass. A Google books search brings up his name in multiple publications though I can’t judge which are in-depth or independent. Mccapra (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra Yes, these are things I did as WP:BEFORE, they're mostly not about him directly but about events he's involved in or something of that nature. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piwik PRO Analytics Suite

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

I appreciate the paid disclosure from the creator of this article, but I don't see this meeting NCORP and it should have gone through AfC. Similar appears to be have been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piwik PRO, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piwik PRO (2nd nomination). Disregarding that, none of the sources are sufficient to pass NCORP, many are press releases or primary sources related to the company. There's a bunch of statistic sites (e.g. [17]), which in counts as trivial coverage under "inclusion in collections that have indiscriminate inclusion criteria". Other trivial coverage under ncorp includes raising capital ([18]). Many supposed third-party sources are written or possibly written by the company and thus primary ([19] is written by their PR manager, [20] is written by a "guest writer", and covers a merger which is also trivial coverage). BEFORE search only turns up more of the same. Pahunkat (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Pahunkat (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Internet, Software, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per my previous assessment of this aricle before my BLAR, I substantially agree with the assessment of potential sources. All I have to add is that I reiterate my recomendation to the article creator that any such future edits go through the appropriate processes (Wikipedia:Articles for creation, Wikipedia:Edit requests). The community's patience is not infinite, and while I do not pretend to be a barometer in this specific regard, moving through the proper channels may reduce the pace at which such patience wears. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources fail WP:ORGCRIT, and BEFORE search turns up nothing else. Should this discussion result in deletion, I recommend WP:SALTing "Piwik Pro" and permutations of it given persistent efforts to reject community consensus and evade appropriate channels like AfC for paid edits. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Akbar

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

Based on the previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Devil's Thumbprint, I still do not think this passes WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. There is not enough SIGCOV in RSs to establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the nominator. - AlbeitPK (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable. Not just as a poet/columnist, but also as a successful cultural producer/entrepreneur whose literary festival is the biggest of its kind in one of the world's largest countries (at least three times bigger than the UK by population). Anglophones may or may not be aware of it, but that is utterly irrelevant to the Bangladesh-based popularity of Dhaka LitFest. --Peripatetic (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References appear to be not about him, notability not established; unclear why his role in Dhaka LitFest meets notability thresholds. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some sources are primary but I am sure there will notability in the future. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 22:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Island Festival

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

This appears to be a non-notable festival with no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. A Google News search yields only a few passing mentions, but nothing that satisfies WP:GNG. GSS ^💬 13:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Singapore. GSS ^💬 13:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 08:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Dyer

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. None of the offices the subject occupies/occupied can make them inherently notable under NPOL. GNG is not passable as there are insufficient sources. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Minimal coverage for the city position, simply standing as a candidate isn't notable enough for here. Not meeting notability, I can't find anything beyond confirmation of the city position. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Don't meet WP:NPOL. Unverifiable contents. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Merrill

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

Fails WP:NPOL as he was defeated in the run for a seat in South Dakota State Senate. WP:GNG is not passable as the sources are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL/WP:ROUTINE and do not provide WP:SIGCOV. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and South Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being the Chairman of a political party is not enough to bear notability per WP:NPOL. However, good redirecting to the party will be good also. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2007 Rugby World Cup squads#Portgual. Star Mississippi 01:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diogo Gama

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Shinadamina (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC Shinadamina (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Portugal. Shinadamina (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a procedural keep as no rationale for deletion has been presented. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: WP:CSK#1 applies as no deletion rationale has been presented. Let'srun (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I have added the rationale now. Shinadamina (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2007 Rugby World Cup squads#Portgual Featured at a World Cup and for a minor nation, struggling to see suitable sourcing but there maybe more offline. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD for now. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A week has not passed since the rationale was added. It should have been there the moment the AfD was posted, not tagged on later. This should have been closed immediately for lack of rationale. The original lack of rationale suggests WP:BEFORE issue. The lack of rationale other than noting lack of sources, including failure to discuss notability, still suggests WP:BEFORE issue. Do we know anything about the individual covered by the article? Did the nominator "take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources"? Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have searched google and unable to find proper news articles on this individual. If you can find any, please post here.Shinadamina (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2007 Rugby World Cup squads#Portgual per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 08:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rodolfo Carter

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. This article says nothing other than the subject is a mayor which fails NPOL. The sources are obvious WP:ROUTINE coverages and do not count towards GNG either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I don't agree with lacking WP:GNG rather particular about WP:NPOL which the article slightly meets. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's either a subject meets a notability guideline, or it doesn't, there's nothing like "slightly meets" or "almost meets" or whatever. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Zella Day. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DayxDay

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

I didn't find significant coverage in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Zella Day. toweli (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zella Day: per nomination. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Vabishchevich

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

Despite a few games for Dinamo Brest many years ago, I can't find any WP:SIGCOV of the footballer of this name. I found kick-off.by and football.by but neither of these are even close to significant. There is a basketball player with the same name but they are different people as the basketball player celebrates his birthday on 4 June. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Several games and then nothing at all. Fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of diplomatic missions of the Luhansk People's Republic

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Aldij (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Aldij (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already covered elsewhere. Does not need an article. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artem Zhurko

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

Has only played 20 minutes of football to date with no sign of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I found only a trivial mention in Tribuna and 2 passing mentions in football.by when searching in Russian and Belarusian. The other Wikipedia projects only have trivial coverage of him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only sources are player profiles and I could not find anything else to meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No source to establish notability. Doesn't meet WP:SPORTSBIO. Databases are literally not sources though they can help say a bio exists. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 11:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudirman (footballer, born 1983)

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

Footballer with brief career and with no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC being met. The best that I can find is Antara Foto, an image caption. Searching was made difficult by the fact that he shares his name with Piala Jenderal Sudirman, the name of a football competition. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Literally nothing here. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Anwegmann (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the basic notability. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Carlton Crew

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

WP:V - Verifiability: This article contains almost no sourcing. Information present is unreliable and a lot of it seems to have been added in contravention of WP:NOR. Has been this way for 14 odd years judging by the article.

WP:ORG - Notability: The article does not meet the Notability guidelines for criminal organisations due to insufficient coverage in independent, secondary sources.

Overall almost none of the information in this article is verifiable, and that is which is verifiable is not notable enough to warrant an article. I considered removing the unverified content, but that which would remain does not seem substantive enough. Rakki9999111 (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Organizations, and Australia. Rakki9999111 (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:BEFORE. Plenty of sources exist online that establish notability. I will work on improving the article in the coming days. GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. There seem to be plenty of sources on this group. That they aren't in the page is unrelated to notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Heaps of sources. Happy to wait for GMH Melbourne to improve. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of CBS Sports college basketball commentators

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, 506sports is a forum and collegehoopsnet is merely an announcment of a list of commentators, the other is a blogspot post; neither doing anything to establish notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Basketball, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge to College Basketball on CBS Sports#Commentators with only the most notable announcers on that list. This list does not meet WP:LISTN for this wiki, but for the fandom wiki, it's fine. Conyo14 (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources such as newspaper articles dating as far back as the early 1980s can easily be found and later added over a relatively short matter of time with the aid of Google News Archives as well as places like Awful Announcing for more "current" or up to date sources. There's also presumably, official press releases from CBS Sports itself. I would estimate, that sources can be filled up in roughly a day and a half. Also, who would fall under the criteria of being "the most notable announcers" among this particular list? Are we only referring to current announcers for CBS as of 2024, are we referring to announcers who only worked the March Madness tournament? BornonJune8 (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: There are secondary sources discussing these announcers as a group particularly for March Madness, as seen with [[21]], [[22]], [[23]], [[24] and [[25]] being found relatively quickly. I wouldn't oppose possibly reducing this to just the March Madness crews but sourcing does appear to show that the WP:LISTN is met. Again, this isn't a broadcasters schedule so I'm not sure how this is a WP:NOTTVGUIDE and I'm unsure which part of NOTDATABASE the nom thinks this violates. Let'srun (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 08:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fáilte

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

Not sure if this violates WP:DICT (wikipedia is not a dictionary). While I see why we have Alba and éire, (Scottish Gaelic and Irish for Scotland and Ireland respectively) because it refers to a country, do we really need a dictionary for a specific world in another language? For anyone wondering, fáilte is the Irish word for welcome. JuniperChill (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Ireland, and Scotland. JuniperChill (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; make it more explicitly a disambig page. —Tamfang (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would turn it into a DAB, as Tamfang suggests. I concur with JuniperChill that it is not appropriate to keep as a dictionary-like entry, but since there are three Wikipedia pages containing the word, a DAB may be appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how turning it into a disambig would work since the only other pages containing the word are Fáilte Ireland and Fáilte Towers. This may be an example of partial title match, but I am not sure if people simply refer it to 'Fáilte'. JuniperChill (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair cop. I won't be too sad if the page is deleted. Cnilep (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - On balance, I think it is difficult to justify this as an article as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dunarc (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fáilte Ireland: that article gets more page views than Fáilte Towers. After redirecting, add a {{redirect}} hatnote targeting the TV series. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not redirect. The existence of a redirect would inhibit searching, and a DAB is no good since there's nothing but PTMs here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT), and this is English Wikipedia, not Irish – this is especially not a translating dictionary, nor a dictionary of all the world's languages. The greeting makes no sense as a redirect, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 08:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Mensah

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

Another poorly sourced BLP with no WP:SIGCOV demonstrated. The best that I can find are Abidjan 1 and Abidjan 2, both passing mentions in Ivorian media. The Feyenoord mentioned is the one in Ghana, not the Dutch team. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fixed the link to the Voice of America article, which seems pretty good. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring it. I'm not going to withdraw this AfD yet as I don't think that it's enough on its own for a GNG pass. The coverage is Fifteen-year-old Francis Joe Mensah is one of the academy's best players, a lightning-quick, technically solid, left back, who can also play left wing. He predicts he will make it in Europe. He says he has no fear of failure. followed by a quote from the subject. I also think WP:YOUNGATH might apply given the age of the subject at the time (the coverage does not seem to be substantial and prolonged). I'd be interested to know what others think. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. One source on its own not enough. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—There's nothing here. Played for an academy and then disappeared. No WP:SIGCOV shown at all. Anwegmann (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The Voice of America article fails WP:YOUNGATH and I don't see anything else besides primary sources and passing mentions. Let'srun (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IPrice Group

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

Fails WPNCORP, lacks independent reliable sources; general notability is also not indicated. BoraVoro (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: according to the reason provided by the nom. Charlie (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Match

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

Fails WPNCORP, sourcing mainly from techinasia and similar paid publications. BoraVoro (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first reference is from The Straits Times, the newspaper of record in Singapore, and the rest seem fine to me, whether or not they have a paywall. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to it and have read it. All the references to the subject are neither independent nor deep enough. Here is the typical coverage from The Straits Times, a source you mentioned: Mr Pawel Kuznicki, 29, director of P2P platform Capital Match, says: "It's more accurate to say that crowdlending is leveraging on technology to service smaller clients which banks may not be able to. BoraVoro (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a "newspaper of record" might be helpful in determining whether a source is reliable, but does nothing to determine whether the content contains in-depth Independent Content and meets NCORP criteria. The "rest" seeming "fine" also doesn't have any bearing on GNG/NCORP criteria - which ones in particular (page/paragraph) contains content that meets the criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage completely fails the independence standards set out by NCORP, with sources based around what the company says rather than secondary independent analysis. JoelleJay (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WeLab

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

Fails WPNCORP, GNG. Poor and not-independent sources BoraVoro (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Cohan, Peter S. (2018). Startup Cities: Why Only a Few Cities Dominate the Global Startup Scene and What the Rest Should Do About It. New York: Apress. p. 64. ISBN 978-1-4842-3392-4. Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Two Hong Kong gazelles are the Uber-for-delivery-vans-service GogoVan and WeLab, which operates a personal lending platform. ... whereas WeLab's ascent appears to have been smoother sailing."
  The book notes: "WeLab's story is less dramatic but another great example of a gazelle becoming a unicorn. Cofounder and CEO Simon Loong started WeLab in 2013 after over 15 years in the banking sector. ... In 2013, he founded WeLab, a mobile lending platform that uses risk-testing technology to conduct credit assessments in seconds and enables customers to borrow money with a few taps of their smartphones. Now valued at more than $1 billion, it was Hong Kong's first tech unicorn and its WeLend leading online lending platform has sourced more than “$154 million in loan applications and 16,000 members.” By January 2016, WeLab had loaned money to 2.5 million customers, the majority in mainland China. That month WeLab raised a $160 million Series B from Khazanah Nasional Berhad, Malaysia's strategic investment fund, with participation from ING Bank and Guangdong Technology Financial Group, which is run by the Chinese government, leading to total funding of $182 million."
2. Leung, Grace L K (2019). Innovative and Creative Industries in Hong Kong: A Global City in China and Asia. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-06849-0. Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "WeLab: founded in 2013, WeLab is reinventing traditional financial services by creating seamless mobile lending experiences. WeLab effectively analyzes unstructured mobile big data within seconds to make credit decisions for individual borrowers. WeLab operates Wolaidai, one of China's leading mobile lending platforms, and WeLend, Hong Kong's leading online lending platform. The company also partners with traditional financial institutions, which utilize WeLab's technology to offer Fintech-enabled solutions to their customers. WeLab did 6 rounds of funding exercises and raised a total of US$425 million. Her investors include CK Hutchison's TOM Group, Malaysian sovereign wealth fund Khazanah Nasional Berhad, ING Bank, Sequoia Capital and Chinese provincial government fund: Guangdong Technology Financial Group. In 2016, WeLab was ranked in a KPMG-sponsored report as one of the top 100 Fintech companies in the world – sixth in China and 33rd globally."
3. Fannin, Rebecca A. (2019). Tech Titans of China: How China’s Tech Sector Is Challenging the World by Innovating Faster, Working Harder & Going Global. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-52937-451-3. Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books.
  The book has a section titled "AI at Work in Fintech: WebLab". The book notes: "An example of AI disrupting traditional banking comes from Hong Kong-based fintech startup WeLab, which provides small consumer loans in an online instant, with fewer than average defaults by relying on AI and data to determine creditworthiness. WeLab technology combs through online data such as bill payment records and social media profiles to figure out which potential borrowers are likely to pay their loans on time. Then it prices and tailors online consumer loans. Consumers complete the entire lending process over their smartphone and don't need an established credit history—an issue among young people starting in their careers. Loan decisions for individual borrowers are made online within seconds. One hint: don't fill out the online form in all capital letters. WeLab has found applicants who write in upper case are not good credit risks. A technology team of more than 210 engineers and data scientists have ..."
4. Mohan, Devie (2020). The Financial Services Guide to Fintech: Driving Banking Innovation Through Effective Partnerships. London: Kogan Page. p. 102. ISBN 978-1-78966-106-4. Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "WeLab is a Hong Kong start-up that was founded in 2013, and which became the first peer-to-peer lending platform in the country. WeLab enables users to borrow money as personal loans from other indi- viduals while delivering lower interest rates than traditional banks. WeLab makes this process as easy as possible, with an online application form and relatively short assessment process being the only barriers to accessing credit. One of the fascinating initiatives implemented by WeLab is Wolaidai, a mobile peer-to-peer lending platform for top-tier university students in China. With the founder of WeLab, Simon Loong, having experience in the commercial banking industry at Citibank and Standard Chartered, this fintech solution draws on experts in the traditional financial system, while taking on some of its biggest proponents. We will undoubtedly see more of this in the years to come."
5. Rubini, Agustín (2019). Fintech in a Flash: Financial Technology Made Easy. Boston: De Gruyter. p. 136. ISBN 978-1-5474-1716-2. Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Founded in 2013, WeLab is a Hong Kong-based internet finance company that uses exclusive risk management technology to analyze Big Data and offer reliable credit services to individual borrowers in the Asian market. WeLab operates two leading online lending platforms, Wolaidai in China and WeLend in Hong Kong, seeking to offer its customers a seamless mobile lending experience. Furthermore, the company has partnerships with traditional financial institutions, which use WeLab's sophisticated credit risk management tools to use Big Data analytics and offer their customers advanced fintech solutions. In January, WeLab raised $160 million in Series B funding from domestic and international investors, including Khazanah Nasional Berhad wealth fund, ING Bank, and state-owned Guangdong Technology Financial Group (GTFG). This was the first time that funds were raised by a Chinese fintech firm and one of the first times that an international financial institution (ING) financed a leading Chinese fintech player."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. Lo, John Y. (2016). Angel Financing in Asia Pacific: A Guidebook for Investors and Entrepreneurs. Bingley, West Yorkshire: Emerald Group Publishing. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-78635-128-9. Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "There appears to be a consensus that the startup scene in Hong Kong has taken a quantum jump in the last five years. A major breakthrough in January 2016 is probably the announcement of the receipt of US$160 million investment in a Series B financing by WeLab. This is a local fintech startup that specializes in peer-to-peer lending technology and operates both in Hong Kong and mainland China. While not publicly disclosed, the valuation of the company has been estimated to be near US$1 billion, qualifying it as the first unicorn24 from Hong Kong."
  2. Gough, Neil (2014-06-16). "Start-Up WeLab Raises $14 Million From Sequoia Capital and Hong Kong Tycoon". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-09-19. Retrieved 2024-05-27.
    The article notes: "WeLab Holdings, an Internet finance start-up in Hong Kong, said on Monday that it had raised $14 million from Li Ka-shing, Asia's richest man, and Sequoia Capital, a stalwart of Silicon Valley."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow WeLab to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On top of the sources found by @Cunard I'd add:

Financial Times article profiling the company. This is an earned media feature article, not an interview.
Forbes with a short market report (which I suspect was leaked by Loong)
Forbes again with a feature on the company. This one is a nice profile but clearly based on an interview with Loong.

Keep This is a major fintech player in Asia Pacific, and although WeLend has its own article this is the parent that also includes Mainland platform Wolaidai as well as a bank in Indonesia I think. There are other bits and pieces out there, at the paragraph scale similar to those found by Cunard, but I think the FT piece along with the Forbes 2022 piece should be enough. Oblivy (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clean up is not deletion. Per se, the sources are significantly impactful for the article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orhan Dragaš

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

The article has a serious lack of WP:RS, which is why I have doubts about notability. There are only five links, and the last one is the website of his own organization, International Security Institute. HPfan4 (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Serbia. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. I Can't say this I'd any way near writing notable books; there was no review also. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Demoscene#List of demoparties. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rewired (demoparty)

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

Not a notable event; no secondary coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Computing, and Belgium. Walsh90210 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties as an WP:AtD. --Mika1h (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supermium

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

Supermium is essentially just Chromium backported to Windows XP. Is this really notable enough for its own article? Seems like it could just have a short mention in the Chromium page. Bringing up the phrase "Supermium" on Google news just reports two articles related to the program, and two related to a Spotify subscription tier. There are several videos made on it however on YouTube (though, mostly by small creators). HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it also seems like the article was originally created by a sockpuppet, if that contributes anything. HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Supporting old versions of Windows is a large enough niche, and the article already has 2 external refs because of it. (Plus there are plenty of other browser articles for even smaller, less-relevant niches.) -Pmffl (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mjd made a video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsSMmdwh89Y plus backporting is not easy esspcialy to windows xp and it has restored support for a lot of things

-Aero Glass and Aero Glass-style titlebars instead of Windows 10-style ones (#force-xp-theme in chrome://flags for the latter)

-Turnaround for major vulnerability patches generally less than one week from upstream disclosure

-A functional sandbox for enhanced security

-Google Sync

-On Windows 7 and up, Widevine CDM support for viewing DRM content

-GDI font rendering, using #force-gdi in chrome://flags

-Persistent dark mode on the browser's UI elements, using #force-dark-mode in chrome://flags

-Custom tab options including trapezoidal tabs, transparent tabs, and outlined tabs

-Many flags from ungoogled-chromium

-Support for SSE2-only processors in the 32 bit build 74.92.169.153 (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a fork or knock-off does not disqualify.--2601:444:7F:53A0:A1BD:97C3:2A74:18FC (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please provide policy-based opinions on what should happen to this article, this is not an article talk page to discuss the article or list features.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WE should keep this because this is probably the best browser for Xp/Vista and 7 that will ever come to exist. Archiving is important. 71.11.225.163 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist and hoping for some thoughtful participation by editors new to the discussion with opinions based in policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have 1 actual non-self-published third-party source, which is [26]. Needs a second one for notability but it's dubious if a second exists. That said, not sure where it would go in the Chromium article. Probably best to Merge unless at least one more reliable source can be found, and then even, maybe. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: This subject lacks ANY reliable sourcing directly detailing the subject. Page was created by a blocked sockpuppet. !votes by ip editors in this process are completely ignoring the lack of reliable sources, and are likely connected to the sockmaster. Based on a reasonable BEFORE, one can see this is a fringe product with a microscopic userbase. BusterD (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I have struck through my previous delete. I still don't think the sources are super, but I'll concede the source analysis below is more compelling than my less detailed assertions. BusterD (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I gaze into my orb and I ponder this article -- I see reliable third-party independent coverage in the Register article. This was indeed created by a blocked sock, but it wasn't a UPE; the sockmaster seems to have been blocked for acting childish, not for anything related to COI or spam et cetera. jp×g 🗯️ 07:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Proven, Liam (2024-03-06). "Supermium drags Google Chrome back in time to Windows XP, Vista, and 7". The Register. Archived from the original on 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-05-28.
  The review notes: "Supermium is a browser based on the Google Chrome 121 codebase that works fine on Windows 7 and even, for the truly desperate, for Vista and XP. The third-party adaptation of Chrome works on versions of Windows that the official product no longer supports. It installs and runs on Windows 7, which stopped getting updates for Edge and Chrome at the start of 2023. It's even able to log into a Google account, as well as synchronize settings and addons."
2. Václavík, Lukáš (2024-03-09). "Supermium je moderní prohlížeč pro Windows XP a jiné vykopávky. Stačí mu i 20 let starý hardware" [Supermium is a modern browser for Windows XP and other digs. Even 20-year-old hardware is enough for him]. Živě.cz [pl] (in Czech). Czech News Center. Archived from the original on 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-05-28.
  The article notes: "Supermium, as the name suggests, comes from the open source Chromium project, which is based on Chrome, Edge, Opera, Vivaldi and other browsers. But all of them require Windows 10 and later. However, in his Chromia offshoot, Fournier rewrote the code so that Windows XP SP3 or Windows Server 2003 SP2 and later are sufficient to run. ... Because it's in the Chromium core, it supports modern extensions, and even current websites will work on old systems. In Windows 7 and later, the Widevine plugin is also functional, so Netflix and other video libraries that rely on this type of anti-piracy protection will run in the browser."
3. Zamfir, Roberto (2024-02-08). "Supermium". Softpedia. Archived from the original on 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-05-28.
  The review notes: "Given how powerful nostalgia can be for those who grow tired of the rather sterile and minimalist design of nowadays’ operating systems, a brief return to the past can be made easier with Supermium whenever internet browsing is part of the equation."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Supermium to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) is the only reliable source of those three. It isn't clear to me who Václavík is and the Zamfir article is self-published. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Zamfir is listed as a Softpedia editor. The article is not self-published. Lukáš Václavík is a reviewer for the Czech News Center magazine Živě.cz [pl]. I consider both articles to be independent reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Czech News Center is one of the largest media houses in the Czech Republic. Unless there's evidence to the contrary, I'd presume that they're reliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Two of the Keep votes center around arguments that aren't related to sourcing. Since this AfD is about sourcing, they're irrelevant. The other two refer to an article from The Register, but notability requires multiple sources, not just one. Given this, I'm inclined to vote to delete. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- notability requires multiple sources -- no it doesn't. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline even says so explicitly. jp×g 🗯️ 04:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new sources found. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airespring

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

Clear promotional content, and there is no significant coverage in any media that I could find, unless we are counting the "Telecom Industry News", which doesn't seem all that reliable to me. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references are a collection of PR announcements and company soundbites. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merdeka Memorial Clock Tower, Kulim

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

WP:MILL structure that fails WP:GNG and WP:NGEO. No sources to describe the significance; two news sources provide evidence in cursory coverage that it was constructed but no detail to constitute WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional evidence of notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of hits about the clock tower in the Singapore National Library, such as [27], but it seems you need to open them on-site in order to be able to read the articles. I've been able to pull these up [28]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at this @Oaktree b. There are actually numerous merdeka (aka "independence") towers/monuments in Malaysia, and this article is specifically about the one in Kulim. The searches you linked are for other cities' merdeka towers. A search adding "Kulim" brings up just the one cursory result already sourced in the article, see here. Just sharing in case this info changes your !vote; thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep - Found a few more sources to establish notability.

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/ce1b4842-51cd-4107-891f-94cb820ff093/Merdeka-Clock-Tower-kulim-kedah

https://www.pressreader.com/malaysia/the-star-malaysia-star2/20180825/281513637011166 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source is just a 3D model of the building. What makes you think this is a reliable source or provides significant coverage? What does this add to the article? Reywas92^Talk 15:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources each have a paragraph about the place. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think what @Reywas92 may be getting at is that that 3D model page is user-generated content. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If found non-notable/deleted, it could be copied entirely into Kulim District. CMD (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still no consensus. Is the last comment advocating a Merge to Kulim District?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SeeVolution

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Sources are trivial (routine funding announcements), non-independent or unreliable. Originally PRODed, but missed this previous AfD which unanimously favoured deletion. – Teratix ₵ 03:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, Websites, and California. – Teratix ₵ 03:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Fails AfD in 2012 and still fails today. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did do a quick BEFORE anyway (and I really do mean quick, there were only 2 google news results, for example, and one of them was about a different topic, as are the hits in scholarly sources, nothing relevant in books, TWL databases don't have anything relevant that aren't press releases, etc). I do see some of their products were acquired by Bridgeline Digital, which is a listed company that we might have been able to redirect to if not for the fact that that company doesn't have an article right now. I don't think a previous deletion via AFD should block a PROD (for recreations that are not G4) though to be honest I'm inclined to speedy delete via A7 for this one, I can't see any plausible CCSI. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Yves Michaud (politician). ✗plicit 08:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michaud Affair

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

This has been problematically tagged for over a decade. Seems almost entirely based on self-published primary sources. Has POV issues, and no clear evidence that this is a notable event beyond a news cycle. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or place to post personal interpretations. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Events, Politics, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yves Michaud (politician) (where this is already addressed in a more succinct way). This is notable enough to be covered somewhere in Wikipedia, but it isn't of enough enduring significance to have its own standalone article as a separate topic from the MNA who was implicated in it. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: as suggested seems fine, this "affair" isn't really notable outside of the individual's notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn G. Rabb Foundation

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

There is nothing online that suggests the organisation still exists. The Guidestar website (https://www.guidestar.org/profile/36-4416453#financials) has the following comment: "This organization has not appeared on the IRS Business Master File in a number of months. It may have merged with another organization or ceased operations. This organization's exempt status was automatically revoked by the IRS for failure to file a Form 990, 990-EZ, 990-N, or 990-PF for 3 consecutive years. Further investigation and due diligence are warranted" suggesting it may be defunct or merged. Very limited info on existing wiki page. Previous organisation website does not appear to exist. Need to find evidence to support notability or delete. Newhaven lad (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked up this organization in the Illinois Secretary of State's online database. Apparently it changed its name to "MGR Youth Empowerment" in 2013, and then dissolved in 2015. So the question is whether it was notable during its existence before it dissolved. For reference, their IRS returns through 2011 can be viewed on Candid.org at https://beta.candid.org/profile/7500383 if it makes a difference. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there do not seem to be any secondary references about the (defunct) organization; merely tax filings and in-passing mentions relating to events the group funded. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Asghar Nadeem Syed#TV plays. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaan'nisar

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. Not to be confused with coverage of 2024 TV drama with the same name. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asghar_Nadeem_Syed#TV_plays: Also see https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/01-Dec-2016/jaan-nisar-a-compelling-drama-on-police-urges-reforms-in-the-vital-organ-of-the-state. Not opposed to Keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Pakistan is a sensational news site. Their coverage can be used for WP:V, but not for GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) I !voted R. 2) did I mention GNG? 3) Since you did, may I ask if there is a consensus to back your assertion? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG. There is in-depth coverage in Dawn ([29]). Daily Pakistan and The Express Tribune articles are additional in-depth articles (given by Mushy and others). Redirect per Mushy. 2A04:4A43:958F:F103:D4FD:4246:32DF:30D4 (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona#District 1. This article can always be expanded should this candidate win his election. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conor O'Callaghan (businessman)

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

Non-notable congressional candidate. He received some attention from national outlets right when he announced his campaign in August of last year, but that's to be expected of any candidate in a competitive House race. From what I can see, he's received zero national news coverage since September 2023. All of the articles cited on the page are campaign-related, and I can't find any non-campaign-related coverage of him on Google from any time, so I don't think he meets GNG. Very much reminiscent of Kellen Curry, another 2024 congressional candidate who got national news attention right when he launched and promptly faded from view. I'd support a redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona#District 1. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Ireland, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support either redirect or outright deleteing, as even with the bit of coverage he has received more recently (he appears to be running a generally more negative campaign rel. to the other 5 in the race) I don't believe he meets notability standards. Buggie111 (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not meeting criminal notability; simply being a political candidate isn't notable. Can be re-created if he wins the political seat, otherwise, not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Weak keep: I support a redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona. That being said, while he doesn't meet WP:NPOL for being a candidate, it's possible he meets WP:BASIC. What makes this different from other cases, in my opinion, is that the candidature coverage is not WP:MILL. He's received a significant amount of coverage that specifically goes into detail about his career before running for office. For example, this Bloomberg article and this MSNBC article. C F A 💬 01:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the national coverage of him isn't run of the mill, but the problem is that the only non-ROTM coverage he ever received came right when he announced his campaign. As I said in the nomination, he's received no national attention since September 2023. It seems like he made a splash right when he announced because he's running in a competitive congressional race, but I don't think that translates to lasting notability. If he loses this race, will anyone be searching his name in 5-10 years? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I made this article...I lost my login for AZVoter so I'll go in my thought process here. Conor has the most cash on hand out of any candidate other than the incumbent in this race. He is polling alright and has four endorsements from people in the US house of reps. So he definitely is getting national recognition. But you are correct, if he loses he will probably be irrelevant. The negative campaigning is something I wanted to add but this was my first article so I did not really know what to write about. JustMadeThis4Discussion (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Raising money and getting a couple endorsements from members of Congress is not what I meant by "national attention" (we're talking about news coverage here) and does not establish notability. See WP:NPOL. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RRLS ICT Academy

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

Fairly new private school with questionable notability due to lack of reliable sources online. Sanglahi86 (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Claim for notability is that it is TESDA accredited. However, accreditation is mandatory and just requires routine paperwork and orientation from TESDA. --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honoring the Fathers of Bluegrass: Tribute to 1946 and 1947

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

Disputed redirect. Just tried to find sources on Google, and couldn't find any. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Grammy Award-winning and Billboard-charted album. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The AllMusic review and the Grammy win are plenty for notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Read WP:NALBUM; this album has met at least two of the criteria, being a Grammy Award album and not just charting but charting at #1 in the U.S. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Hänni

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

Only sources provided are a primary source and obituary in a local news outlet of a minor town. Search does not indicate any further coverage. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. No indication works have achieved level of significance to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, and Switzerland. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially per nom. Appears to have been a local history enthusiast, but a far cry from satisfying WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Nsk92 (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Possible rename or merge can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grossology (books)

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

Non-notable book series. Insufficient sourcing for 15 years, no independent sigcov provided to establish notability. PROD removed due to talkpage message from anon who "loved the books as a kid". Jdcooper (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Video games, Biology, Medicine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The anon was right. Grossology was an incredibly popular book series that spawned a TV show and a traveling museum exhibit, and I can find tons of newspaper articles about it. Here's a few: "Teaching the oozy gooey science of grossness" (Allentown Morning Call, Aug 2013), "Museum exhibit uncovers all things gross" (Lincoln Journal Star, Sept 2005), "Totally Gross" (Louisville Courier Journal, Feb 2007). Keep the article per WP:NEXIST. Toughpigs (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And move to Grossology as the primary topic per Toughpigs and the reliable sources he has found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, these sources seem to refer to the exhibition, so I'm not sure they establish the books as the primary topic. The article about the TV series is far longer (though with a large amount of unsourced excess trivia). Maybe all the articles (+ info on the exhibition from the sources) should be merged into one. Jdcooper (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'll start one big page to see how a merge would work out at User:Jellyfish/Grossology and see how it looks all together. Will edit when time allows. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  On second thought - Grossology (TV series) is absolutely massive, at least on my phone. Unless there's a significant bit of fat to trim off the article, I think it'd be best left as a summary with the main article template thrown on top of the section. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I removed the worst of the fancruft, but yeah it's still a large article in its own right, so I agree with you. Jdcooper (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also just realized it has one incredibly nonspecific and presumably un-archived source. Lovely! Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - traveling museum exhibit appears notable and has received nationwide coverage (albeit, from multiple local newspapers) from about 2007 to 2021. I also tracked down this NYT article, though it looks to just be a passing mention of the book. jellyfish ✉ 19:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ per author. Rushed AfD and unneeded. Sorry for confusion. (non-admin closure) Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1935–36 Serie C

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

This article, and many others of the same league for these historic years, do not cite sources outside of a single book. This is not a top division league, and I do not feel that a single book source establishes notability for most of these historical Serie C seasons. I am also nominating the following related pages because they similarly rely on a single source/no sources and do not establish independent notability:

Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are more sources in practically every it.wiki correspondent. And even though it is the third tier, it is part of the pyramid of some of the more traditional football championships in the world. This nomination is strange, not to mention that it could incur WP:TRAINWRECK. Svartner (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faaimata Hiliau

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

Unfortunately I don't see how this meets WP:BASIC. The only independent article that offers WP:SIGCOV is this one by The Sydney Morning Herald. The two ([30] [31]) magazine articles by the Uniting Church are not independent and don't count towards notability. C F A 💬 01:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Christianity, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC (and even WP:GNG if you count the Compass documentary in addition to The Sydney Morning Herald feature article mentioned above). Added two articles from The South Sydney Herald about recent activity related to climate change which Hiliau has been involved in (speaking at Pasifika community gathering and formal visit to government ministers and MPs in Canberra), as well as an external link to the ABC TV Compass documentary about Hiliau and the future of the United Church, with a viewership of 166,000 in August 2023 per MediaWeek. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per GNG. There were already 2 independent sources with SMH and compass, and Cielquiparle has added 2 more.

Newystats (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She seems to be notable but the references am not sure could have given her a keep.--Meligirl5 (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a hugely important non-Anglo female faith figure in New South Wales’ third biggest Christian denomination. SproulesLane (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that together with the references in the article shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Reza Seyedi

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

BLP fails WP:GNG and all relevant biography guidelines. The basic problem is a lack of WP:SIGCOV in any sources. Quick review of existing sources: 1, 3/8, and 4 are WP:ROUTINE/WP:TRIVIAL coverage, not significant mentions. Source 2 has no reference to the subject. 5, 9 and 10 are primary source bios. 6 and 7 are trivial mentions in lists of speakers. 11-15 are references to the subject's own writing and thus ineligible for notability. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to point to notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Aviation, Transportation, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom which can simply be out as PROMO and doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Gómez

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

I found nothing that shows notability. Her only claim to fame per WP:BIO1E is winning a beauty pageant. Even if that is considered to be enough, I have been unable to verify her win with a reliable source which is very odd. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Puerto Rico. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this person, only hits on the name, in unrelated people/industries. Not meeting GNG, lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the beauty pageant results are insufficient coverage for a biographical article, and there is no sign of other coverage beyond her personal social media (which does not suggest that she is a public figure). Walsh90210 (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She and her partner were interviewed by their local newspaper after they returned from a holiday in Barcelona where they were very close to a terror attack and then dealt with two hurricanes, which is neither here nor there. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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