Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 30	May 02 >

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 redirect‎ to Firefox version history#Rapid releases. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox Rapid Release Model

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and there is little coverage of the subject online aside from one study. Clear friend a ^💬 23:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content this article contains that we would have to transfer into Firefox or Firefox version history#Rapid releases before deleting this article (as it is missing in those):

That Firefox downloads a smaller patch/update file, rather than a full installer, since the Rapid Release Model/Firefox v5.0.
That this streamlines the update process for users to more easily keep their Firefox installation up-to-date.

--D4n2016 (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Firefox version history#Rapid releases without merging. @D4n2016, the information you say we have to merge is unsourced. Most of the article is unsourced. superuser.com is WP:UCG and therefore not a RS. Sorry, but this wasn't a good use of ChatGPT. Jfire (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Redirect to Firefox version history#Rapid releases without merging." Are you saying you want me to redirect something without merging? I don't understand D4n2016 (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Firefox version history#Rapid releases: Not independently notable, article screams written by AI. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:51, 3 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) 19:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Greyvensteyn

(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. Ineligible for PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Amature player with minimal coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY, not independent coverage. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:00, 6 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 merge‎ to Cody Fry. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flying (Cody Fry album)

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

Non-notable album. The song in it, "I hear a symphony", may be notable, but is already covered in the author's page (Cody Fry). Broc (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Broc (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cody Fry: found zero evidence of notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Flying" and "Better" are also notable songs on this album. His live performance of "Better" has 2.3M views on YouTube and "Flying" has 1M views. Most of the tracks on this album are Cody Fry's more popular songs. Billybob2002 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't mean that the album has to have its own page. The songs could still be covered in the Cody Fry article. Geschichte (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~Keep~~ merge: Beyond the success of individual songs on the album, I've found at least a handful of news stories on the album. It's marginally notable, but notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti could you provide some links? Broc (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Sorry for not including them initially! Atwood Magazine was the initial source that gave me optimism about a keep, but looking at the other sources, they're all campus newspapers. A bummer, but now I'm more keen on a merge to redirect. Thanks for following up. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I had also found the Atwood magazine one, but interviews do not contribute to notability. Broc (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti The sources I added and yours does not make you think of keeping this article? The sources I added are non-campus newspapers/sources. Billybob2002 (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Billybob2002 thanks for adding the sources, but interviews do not contribute to the notability of an album. Broc (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is the proposal to Redirect or Merge to Cody Fry as a target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Merge to Cody Fry. Sorry for not making that abundantly obvious in my initial !vote change. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Zipline (drone delivery company). Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keller Rinaudo Cliffton

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

The article has many issues for a BLP and feels like a WP:SPIP. The article already has a resume-like alert and the puffery alert (which is dated from 2021).

I would also argue that on the notability of this subject. This person's notability is not inherented to them by association with their company. The company is notable and has high quality representation in Wikipedia.

There are also a number of details that are not cited in this article and our major issue for BLP. Many of the citations also do not match facts in the source (example: cite in personal life). One source is just "Department of Construction Management & Civil Engineering" without any sort of information to detail whether this source is a publication, a website, etc.

Ew3234 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ew3234 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Technology, Aviation, Arizona, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment (no considered view on notability one way or the other): redirection to Zipline (drone delivery company) is surely a viable alternative to deletion. – Teratix ₵ 13:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per suggestion and WP:BOLD. Bearian (talk) 13:18, 8 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!} 05:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbaaz Ali Khan

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

I may be missing it due to language barriers, but I couldn't find sources to establish that he meets WP:ENT / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep surprised see this AfD. Notable actor, may not be very popular. Article do lst several filmography. RationalPuff (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Delete mixed up with his namesake. Non-notable actor.RationalPuff (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NACTOR. The only allegation of notability is that he's related to two other actors. It's refreshing to see that Hollywood is not the only acting world with nepotism. His roles are supporting roles (NOT Lord Krishna, and buried deep in a cast of dozens) or throwaway characters. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing notability standards Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failed WP:GNG as well as without any references Pinakpani (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ammon Jeffs

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

Most likely not per WP:NBIO. References linked either don't mention the subject at all or offer very trivial mentions. A quick Google search shows little-to-no coverage. There's no reason for this article to exist on its own. Clear friend a ^💬 23:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO/WP:GNG/WP:AUTHOR. No significant coverage in reliable sources. His book is self-published and not notable. He is not mentioned in Prophet's Prey. I don't know if there's even any reliable sources available to support a mention in Warren Jeffs and therefore a redirect. Jfire (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've just noticed he is credited as being portrayed in the Netflix Documentary, so that's at least another mainstream reference. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merely having an actor portray him is insufficient for WP:NBIO. The credit is for "Young Ammon Jeffs" in a single episode; it may not even be a speaking part. The documentary would have to contain significant coverage of him to be relevant for notability, and I don't see any evidence of that. Jfire (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments of Jfire. Skyerise (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jfire. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also note that there is nothing notable that he's done. There's no allegation of notability except for being some guy's son. Bearian (talk) 13:21, 8 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) 15:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NX Files

AfDs for this article:

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

I need editors' help to determine this video series' notability. Some of the references are dead, and I don't know whether the few ones that live are enough. I didn't find anything in WP:BEFORE search. Neocorelight (Talk) 23:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Neocorelight (Talk) 23:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_NX_Files_characters for the character list. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Internet. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arguments to keep in the last nomination were extremely low-quality and based on various notability and logical fallacies, mostly WP:ITSIMPORTANT and various kinds of appeal to emotion and ad hominem. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When searching for sources for the current AFD for the character list, I was finding absolutely nothing on this series in reliable sources. What sources are present in the article are also pretty bad - most are not even really about the series or are not reliable sources. The extremely small amount of coverage it received seventeen years ago is not enough to pass the WP:GNG and it has received absolutely no coverage or reviews in reliable sources since then. Rorshacma (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet criteria for notability. Can't find sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. Lekkha Moun (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources, terrible arguements last time, fails notability, etc. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sounds like a strong case for deletion. The lack of reliable sources WP:SIGCOV and issues with notability WP:GNG raise concerns about the article's factual basis and value. Waqar💬 18:24, 4 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!} 23:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Sempebwa

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

Sequentially an article that is written with many links and ref layout so impress editors and readers. A general overview of this articles shows its failure in meeting general notability guidelines. The articles told us that subject of it is a writer, but it's also credibly that it goes nowhere to WP:NAUTHOR. The books doesn't seem to have significant coverage or reviews to indicate a generally critically accepted written work. Aside from that, most of the books were published by his 'press' which doesn't meet notability and seems to be cited also in the article.

No coverage at all for his impact in the filed. In general, it doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO for inclusion, please analyse the sources before commenting. Some of the sources doesn't necessarily approves the word it's citing or let me say, "unreliable". Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Arts, Language, Literature, and Uganda. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of the currently cited sources are written by Sempebwa or published by organizations related to him, which is not suitable to establish notability. But some of the sources (e.g. The Monitor, Pulse Uganda) seem to be independent. I can't tell from the sites' own "about us" information, and in light of the somewhat laudatory tone, whether these can be considered "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS), though. Cnilep (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cnilep, I do agree with you. Also, Pulse Uganda can be sometimes fact checking but not in this tone. Example, in WP:NGRS, the pulse NG is used mostly not on bios since they are usually promotional and all lies with other subsidiaries of Pulse. I think they are best for film and music reviews and lifestyle. Also in the pulse article, the author was pointing "according to his website" and thus, indicates that they aren't verifiable yet. The promotional time is always huge that one notices it and ask whether it is paid for because it doesn't cover any SIGCOV. IMO, the article can still meet notability in the future but not now. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - there are some allegations of notability, but it needs much better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 13:22, 8 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!} 23:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Woodahl

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

I'm not finding anything in a BEFORE search that substantiates this artist's notability. It's been tagged for notabilty for 10 years. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Maryland. Netherzone (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not finding and sources online to show this visual artist is notable He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NARTIST. Saying an artist has art in "many galleries" is not the allegation of notability it appears to be. It could be in four out of the way small, second-hand, for-profit galleries in Sheboygan, Schenectady, Scotia, and Schenevus. There are a few mentions, but not as far as I can see significant coverage. Ping ]me if you find more. Bearian (talk) 13:28, 8 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. The article is clearly not based on a single source, so WP:GNG is met. The term does, however, seem to be tied to a single author, Katheryn Russell-Brown. In these cases it is often an editorial decision whether a subtopic deserves a standalone article (or if a merge is in order), and the result depends on the weighted numerical majority. The "keep" !votes are more numerous, but discounting a few weak arguments, I find both sides to be of comparable strength. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Racial hoax

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

Nominated by an IP user: Non-notable concept. Any references to this term I can find ultimately lead back to a single author, Katheryn Russell-Brown, showing that this concept has not reached the level of notability for an article. There are a handful of notes about her work on it, but the little I can find is fairly surface level and doesn't add the sort of analysis that would be required for building a well developed, neutral article. Moreover, the vast vast majority of the article is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, attempting to attribute documented cases to this concept, despite no other authors having done so. Strip that out, and also the "Concept" material which doesn't really discuss this as a concept, and this boils down to a single source. UtherSRG (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Ethnic groups, and Popular culture. UtherSRG (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Aquillion, Firefangledfeathers, Gumbear, Maxxhiato, Tulzscha, and 195.180.48.123: Pinging participants in a relevant talk page thread from March 2023 to February 2024, which is preserved at the talk page of this AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to copy the talk to the deletion discussion's talk, as nothing has, yet, been deleted. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / delete. A few small parts are mergable - specifically, the parts of the concept section about Russel-Brown's writings can be merged to Katheryn Russell-Brown and / or The Color of Crime (1998 book); but the rest (the bulk of the article) ought to be deleted as WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. As an academic term it's real but is mostly just by one author and is better covered on that author's page; the rest of it is mostly just a list of whenever the media has used the words "hoax" and is original research / synthesis in the sense that it connects a bunch of things to a theory when most of them lack sources making that link. --Aquillion (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a demonstrably real social phenomenon. Perhaps rename it "List of Racial Hoaxes"? religious hoax is also merely a list of notable religious hoaxes. Not sure why we'd treat the two differently.
Also, after reviewing the AfD Discrimination nominations, need to make sure this isn't a larger effort towards viewpoint censorship. Gumbear (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming/framing it as a list doesn't address the fundamental notability problem (and only probably weakens its case per WP:NLIST). As for the other, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And finally, please tone down the censorship rhetoric; it's not helpful. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of citations. Article may need improvement, but AfD is not for cleanup. Skyerise (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't clean up a lack of notability, and that is for AFD. Simply having citations isn't enough, and you didn't address the deletion rationale that I provided. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the incidents listed are notable, there are not enough sources beyond Russel-Brown's book and other writings to enable the article to explore the concept itself. TH1980 (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real topic, meets WP:GNG. Yes, the article needs improvements, and as Skyerise pointed out this is not the purpose of AfD. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since my whole point was that this is the work of a single author, thus not meeting GNG, can you explain how you think it meets GNG, rather than simply making an assertion to the contrary? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:GNG? As long as an article has received coverage in several secondary sources, it is presumed notable (in most cases, see WP:SNG. The author you mentioned is the one who first brought up the concept. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A single author writing about a topic, even multiple times, does not confer a pass on GNG. Articles like this are routinely deleted on notability grounds, even when there are multiple authors working closely together. Without outside attention and analysis given to the topic, a neutral article can't be written. The sourcing that would be needed about this topic to sustain GNG simply doesn't exist. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cocobb8. An article fails when a single source is used, thus making it original research. If a single person edits the article, that's not a reason to delete. In 2024, everyone knows that, and Red herrings don't work at AfD. Bearian (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, please reread what I wrote. I'm not talking about a single Wikipedia author editing this page; I'm talking about Russell-Brown being the only author who's written about the topic of the article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above Claire 26 (talk) 02:48, 9 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!} 23:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parhlo

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. I removed some WP:FAKEREFerences but decided best to come to AfD instead of stripping the page. The WP:BEFORE search found interviews, quotes, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA but not the type of significant coverage needed to show notability. Maybe there are non-English references but I am unable to locate those from my search. CNMall41 (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Websites, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: References mention Parhlo: "according to Parhlo.com... blah blah", or citing a Tweet from Parhlo. But they don't really say anything about the newspaper itself so I'm not sure where whoever made this acquired the text from. The only two sources I could find that do write a few lines about the newspaper is Techjuice Techjuice — but it's almost certainly not reliable because the website is spammy and hasn't even posted an article in almost a year — Dawn, which is probably reliable but it doesn't say all that much. Coop (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a paid article and simply doesn't meet WP:GNG or even WP:NCORP. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP. 116.204.148.65 (talk) 00:14, 6 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!} 23:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chandamour

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

Fails GNG. Nothing on Wikipedia library. Google gives literally a few hundred results, with barely anything useful for verification (forums, trademark listings) much less notability. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and France. Owen× ☎ 23:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a single company's brand name cheese, not a widespread or well-known variety. It's also been nominated for deletion at fr.wiki. Reywas92^Talk 01:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a brand, it's also a cheese.

Cow's milk cheese, Pasteurized milk cheese, Loire-Atlantique cheese, Soft cheese with bloomy rind. Alenglin (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The source listed on article is a dead link, searching that site returns no results, and Wayback doesn't have a listing. I checked Archive.org and found the manual from the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), in French, just mentioning that it's sold commercially and saying that it's Brie on a page talking about the processes of making cheese. Otherwise, PTO 1998 official gazette listing it as registered on May 5, 1992. There were a few pages returned on BAnQ, but all to ads like on page 9. Also listed in the gazette from 1991. OIM20 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The valid URL is : https://rhizomik.net/role/resource?uri=http://fr.dbpedia.org/resource/Chandamour

As it is a French cheese, the article is in French Alenglin (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: that URL is a site that scrapes material from dbpedia, which in turn pulls from Wikipedia. In this case, it's pulling from the French Wikipedia article, which also appears to be in a deletion discussion. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, especially if it's exclusively a brand identifier. Doesn't meet WNP:GNG. Herrichglaube (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a brand, it's also a cheese. Alenglin (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do is to complete the article. This article is too short to say everything. To be kept to complete the article Alenglin (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many French cheeses are notable, although many are not. Bearian (talk) 13:34, 8 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.

I'm closing this discussion as a Soft Deletion as the editors advocating Delete have limited AFD experience. Another closer can choose to relist this discussion if you feel that move is appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Benjamin

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

Fails WP:NACTOR - google search did not discover any WP:GNG coverage as well. Played a couple of minor roles back in the 60's. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Religion, and United Kingdom. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I won't vote, but will just say that I knew Adrian Benjamin quite well many years ago (1960s). The article seems to be accurate, but not to add up to notable. Athel cb (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was he a nice bloke? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so at the time. Athel cb (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. very weak news coverage. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a small amount of coverage such as New title rewards service to church but not enough. It's not clear to me whether Vicar under fire is the same person, but even so it's not really enough. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage found to meet WP:GNG.Lkomdis (talk) 18:14, 8 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alekh Kumar Parida

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. The sources are paid press - no reliable or significant sources. Additionally, this subject does not indicate any significance to have an article on Wikipedia. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 19:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 19:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Subject passes the WP:GNG very easily, look at the newly published source also, [1] Abualsarmad (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Mostly all articles in Hindi-language, it passes Guidelines for Notability as much as I understood those. TheChronikler7 (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is Notable musical artist and actor, found these sources when searched on the Engine, check [2]. TyagiZakirAli (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject passes WP:BASIC very easily. Historical Heritages of Bihar (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs an assessment of the reliability of the proposed sources; see Paid news in India.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable and seems like there are good sources that could be added Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources indicate that he passes notability, the article needs work though InDimensional (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What are the best WP:THREE here? And also the !vote somewhere above me was posted by a blocked user (Me_Da_Wikipedian). Roxy177 (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The recent article on India.com [3] is reliable and independent enough to prove the notability guidelines. Zarahassan9992 (talk) 14:19, 8 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!} 23:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Song Haus Music

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

This article on a USA-based record label, created in 2010, is unreferenced. Per WP:Before no sigcov found including in searches in both the wikipedia library and standard search engine, except a passing mention in Billboard ([4]). Subject fails to meet notability guidelines. As there aren't guidelines in place for record labels - I expect WP:NORG applies. ResonantDis_tortion 16:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, and United States of America. ResonantDis_tortion 16:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This company shares a warehouse with two other record labels: Metallic Blue Records and Rewind Records. [5] StonyBrook _babble 22:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:01, 1 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) 15:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loralee Larios

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

The only potentially distinguishing characteristic of this early career academic is an Ecological Society of America Early Career Fellowship, which, honestly, ain't anything very remarkable. The rest of her work shows busy engagement with research and teaching but nothing that would satisfy WP:PROF. I don't see a sufficient notability basis here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=VylkhkQAAAAJ LeapTorchGear (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. LeapTorchGear (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. LeapTorchGear (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. LeapTorchGear (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks a fair bit WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF notability for this 2013 PhD and current assistant professor. There are a couple of moderately cited papers, but they are also highly coauthored, and middle author (in a field where that matters) on these doesn't convince me of so much. The awards are strictly early career. Little other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A case of WP:TOOSOON since he neither passes NPROF or GNG. The awards are early career and the papers dont have the sustained impact in the field yet, see Russ. --hroest 12:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly WP:TOO SOON. She has made a good start to her career, and in 5 years of so will probably be an appropriate person to include, just not yet. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page, basically a CV, was created by a SPA. Timing is consistent with a tenure app. 128.252.210.4 (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - regretfully - this is a classic TOOSOON situation, as a "early career fellow." Bearian (talk) 13:37, 8 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. Star Mississippi 03:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ba Ban Chinese Music Society of New York

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

Some coverage, but not enough significance to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, China, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lu, Xianxiu 呂賢修 (2014-01-30). "八板中樂團等獲藝術基金殊榮" [Ba Ban Chinese Music Society and others won awards from the Art Fund]. World Journal (in Chinese). p. C4.
  The article notes: "... 紐約八板中樂團經常在華人重要活動演出，華人社區對他們並不陌生。1999年成立於皇后區新鮮草原，紐約八板中樂團是紐約少數的國樂專業團隊之一。該團由多位獨奏家組成，主要團員包括笛子繆宜民、琵琶周懿、古箏王君玲、二胡張寶利、揚琴魯靜。多次獲得此獎金支持，團員們視為重要鼓勵，對能在海外傳播傳統文化感到自豪。"
  From Google Translate: "...The New York Ba Ban Chinese Music Society often performs at important Chinese events, and the Chinese community is no stranger to them. Founded in 1999 in Fresh Prairie, Queens, the New York Ba Ban Chinese Music Society is one of the few professional Chinese music groups in New York. The troupe is composed of several soloists. The main members include Miao Yimin on the flute, Zhou Yi on the pipa, Wang Junling on the guzheng, Zhang Baoli on the erhu, and Lu Jing on the dulcimer. Having received this bonus support many times, the members regard it as important encouragement and are proud to spread traditional culture overseas."
  The article notes: "八板中樂團曾參與過三次花旗棒球場亞洲之夜，以及搖滾歌劇「西遊記」等演出，昨日還應邀在帝國大廈農曆新年點燈儀式上表演。農曆新年將至，他們近期也頻頻受邀在各地老人中心演奏。他們除了在海外保存、創造、發揚中國傳統絲竹音樂，近年並融合爵士樂，參與外百老匯演出，也曾扮演聯合國文化大使角色。"
  From Google Translate: "The Ba Ban Chinese Music Society has participated in Asia Night at Citi Baseball Stadium three times, as well as the rock opera "Journey to the West" and other performances. Yesterday, it was invited to perform at the Empire State Building's Lunar New Year lighting ceremony. The Lunar New Year is approaching, and they have been frequently invited to perform in senior centers around the country recently. In addition to preserving, creating, and promoting traditional Chinese silk and bamboo music overseas, they have also integrated jazz music in recent years, participated in off-Broadway performances, and have also served as cultural ambassadors for the United Nations."
2. Krawitz, Alan (2004-01-18). "Saluting the Year Of The Monkey: Festive dance and music transform a library into a Chinese theater" (pages 1 and 2). Newsday. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-05-02. Retrieved 2024-05-02 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The audience at a recent Ba Ban Chinese Music Society performance saw the Monkey King herald the Year of the Monkey and learned just how tricky dancing with fans and swords can be. ... Since its founding in 1999, the Ba Ban Chinese Music Society has performed extensively in New York City with shows at Lincoln Center, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and New York University. Dedicated to the preservation, creation and presentation of Chinese folk and contemporary music, the group of accomplished artists derives its name from an ancient piece of folk music, where "Ba Ban" literally means "eight beats," which is a basic structural method of grouping notes in traditional Chinese music."
3. "Ba Ban Chinese Music Society". The Indianapolis Star. 2004-04-15. Archived from the original on 2024-05-02. Retrieved 2024-05-02 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: ""Ba Ban" literally means the funda "eight beats" mental structure of rhythm in traditional Chinese music. The New York-based group has been performing Chinese folk and contemporary music for five years, at locations such as Lincoln Center and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The ensemble's musicians who play bamboo and silk instruments, a hallmark of the Ching Dynasty (1636–1911). Yimin Miao, plays ditzi, a bamboo flute that dates back 9,000 years. Zhou Yi's pipa, or lute, involves more than 70 playing techniques. Both artists have played for audiences worldwide and have taken top prizes at competitions in China and the United States."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Wu, Ben (2013). "Trends in Globalization of Pipa Music". In Yu, Hui; Stock, Jonathan P. J. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Music in China and the Chinese Diaspora. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 335. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190661960.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-066196-0. Retrieved 2024-05-02 – via Google Books.
    The book notes about Zhou Yi: "Zhou moved to the United States in 1998 and settled in New York. She was a cofounder of the Ba Ban Chinese Music Society of New York, which performs Chinese music regularly. She has also participated in several operatic and musical theater premieres with pipa in the orchestra."
  2. "Ba Ban Chinese Music Ensemble". Indianapolis Monthly. April 2006. p. 51. Retrieved 2024-05-02 – via Google Books.
    The article notes: "Ba Ban Chinese Music Ensemble Apr. 9. Since forming in 1999, this internationally renowned group has frequently performed in places such as Carnegie Hall, Lincoln Center, Merkin Concert Hall and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, as well as various Ivy League venues. 3 p.m. $5. Lilly Performance Hall, University of Indianapolis. 1400 E. Hanna Ave. 788-3251."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ba Ban Chinese Music Society of New York (simplified Chinese: 纽约八板中乐团; traditional Chinese: 紐約八板中樂團) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – The Newsday source is very good, definitely sigcov. The Indianapolis sources do provide quite a bit of background information, but they probably fall under WP:ROUTINE as newspaper ads for an upcoming event, as do the other sources found online. I can't verify the World Journal article, but that does seem like sigcov (or very high praise at least). This is a borderline case, but I'm inclined to keep. Toadspike (talk) 08:17, 3 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terremoto

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

No notability is established, there is little to no WP:SIGCOV. Mostly consists of a track list, and a personel list. Geardona (talk to me?) 19:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I recently reduced the article to a redirect, but was reverted by an Italian IP editor who added a reference to the webzine ondarock.it.[6] For further significant coverage to satisfy WP:NSONG, we would need at least one more in-depth piece in a reliable source. Also, I don't know how reliable is the webzine ondarock. Claudio Fabretti founded it in 2001, and it appears to have multiple editors and many contributors, so it looks okay. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the additional references in the corresponding Italian article at it:Terremoto (album) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some references from the Italian article. Also, the album charted, as mentioned in La Stampa's article and the various charts referenced in the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following Eastmain's references, seems to meet SIGCOV now (and, therefore, WP:NALBUM. Bestagon ⬡ 10:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily passes multiple points of WP:NALBUMS, most coverage is likely offline as all the major Italian music magazines of the time (Rumore, Il Mucchio Selvaggio, Buscadero, Ciao 2001, Rockstar, GDM, Tutto Musica, even TV Sorrisi e Canzoni) do not have online web archives. --Cavarrone 13:26, 7 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!} 23:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Czarnotta

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV was found for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 02:45, 8 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!} 23:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Dusik

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I found one source mentioning her name but nothing in-depth that she meets WP:GNG. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 09:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NSKATE #1 is not satisfied with junior national champions. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 20:04, 5 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singha Purohit

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

The entire article( created by a sockpuppet account), appears to focus solely on a single historical event involving a person. There are no additional details available except for the person's role in saving the Daughter of the Sikh Guru Hargobind from the Mughals. This lacks sufficient notability WP:GNG, and there isn't enough context to justify creating an article. Imperial ^[AFCND] 18:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Hinduism, Sikhism, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 18:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly written page and I cannot even verify texts from the sources. Fails notability guidelines and the maybe sourced contribution does not aid in the verifiable presentation of the subject. RangersRus (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: WP:G5. Speedy deletion should not have been declined. The SPI appears to rule that the creator was likely unrelated, which might have caused the confusion. However, the real reason this account was later blocked can be found here. Aintabli (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability and possibly speedy delete Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: lacks reliable sources, fails notability guidelines, also content is unverifiable. Waqar💬 16:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. If it were not a SPA, I would go along with a userfy. Bearian (talk) 13:40, 8 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!} 23:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Myriam Flühmann

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Switzerland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A crummy stub with nothing more to offer than mentioning the subject winning two bronze medals, one at national level and another in a not so prestigious tournament. IMO, solely winning these two trophies do not warrant notability here.
Conducting searches for source on my own also leads to nothing of use (mostly passing mentions from statistical sites). Printed coverage in local language is unlikely, and if there are (were) then chances are they were brief, as winning a bronze medal or two do not warrant much fame to be written about on a large scale. X (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:45, 5 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!} 23:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Dutertre

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and France. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:NSKATE or WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 17:01, 6 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!} 23:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michał Tomaszewski

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – From what I can see based on my Google search ("Michał Tomaszewski łyżwiarz figurowy"), news sources only refer to him as part of the figure skating duo with Agata Rosłońska and passing mentions; nothing in-depth about the man himself. Corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia likewise does not have significant coverage in secondary sources. No news have been released on Tomaszewski over 20 years either. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 11:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:51, 5 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Siebe

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or anywhere near WP:NHOCKEY. Played junior amateur hockey without honors and does not have any coverage. Kline • talk • contribs 17:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and United States of America. Kline • talk • contribs 17:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failure to meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Flibirigit (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - only played lower-level junior hockey. The Kip 19:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: So full disclosure, I don't usually visit the hockey part of Wikipedia. The scope of my editing is mostly limited to fish and wildlife, and I didn't know the first thing about the sport until I wrote this article about a week ago. Even now, if you put a gun to my head and told me to name a player besides Mason Siebe, I'd have to say "pull the trigger."

I came across this guy's picture while looking for CC-compliant pictures of cichlids on Flickr, and it caught my eye because it had pretty good composition and it was released under permissible licensing for Wikipedia. And then I thought to myself, "hey, every time I click the random article button, it seems like it's either an Iranian village with 30 residents or a hockey player. I wonder if this guy has an article?" And he didn't, but his team did, so I figured it would be fair game under WP:GNG, and I treated it as an exercise to step out of my comfort zone and learn something new.

I didn't realize WP:NHOCKEY existed; if I had, I wouldn't have written the article. I'm 100% on board with it being deleted, and I've removed the crosslinks I made to it in List of people from Spokane, Washington and Mason (given name) so it doesn't create any red links once it is. My bad.

Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 3 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!} 23:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Young-eun (figure skater)

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. A bronze medal at the national championships does not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and South Korea. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per given rationale. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:47, 5 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!} 23:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Márquez

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

I'm kind of confused by this article. The only reference here it seems to not include his name and I can't find anything about this guy when I look him up. No article on es wiki either. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Economics, and Puerto Rico. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. I am not sure that the acting secretary appointed by an acting governor counts as passing WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 8 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deadman Crossing, Ohio

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:GEOLAND. Previously deleted via PROD, restored following RFUD with the justification Expired PROD says it was tagged as a nn railroad crossing and failed WP:GEOLAND. It's actually an unincorporated community, and as such per GEOLAND is actually supposed to be presumed notable. This is erroneous, however, as the sole source for the article is a GNIS listing, and GEOLAND specifies that GNIS listings do not satisfy its criterion on their own and are unreliable. I was unable to find any coverage other than GNIS mirrors searching on Google Scholar and Google Books. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ohio. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was called Deadman Crossing as early as 1906, but was always just a literal railroad crossing, with no buildings or anything else suggesting a community: [7]. Never mentioned in a history of Ross County: [8]. Besides GNIS, other mentions could be found but these were all trivial and dealt with local geology, mentioning it as a site but never as a community. Another nonexistent place conjured out of thin air by GNIS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find very little, seems to be a rural community, It is not the location of the notorious Deadman's Crossing, which is dangerous train crossing located elsewhere in Ohio.James.folsom (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable railroad crossing. GNIS is not a reliable source to establish notability and does not mention an unincorporated community. –dlthewave ☎ 14:39, 8 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Swap AI

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

No significant, independent coverage in WP:reliable sources in either the article already or found with searches. Only a few passing mentions in articles about the single being released. No suitable redirect target that I can see. Skynxnex (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, and Organizations. Skynxnex (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Sources present are just passing mentions. Promotional in tone as well, feels more like a press release than an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Sources available are about a music release and offer passing mentions if any of the cryptocurrency, no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS found elsewhere. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a pretty bizarre article, with sources that are about Ming Luanli's fledgling music career (itself non-notable) and those sources only briefly mention Quantum Swap AI as an attempted cross-promotion. This article is most likely another attempt of the same. The cryptocurrency itself has no reliable media coverage or analysis in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER and WP:TOOSOON. Unless there is a typo, it purports to discuss a cryptocurrency to be created this summer. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 8 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Bukoff

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

I can't find any sources on this guy anywhere. There are a few papers but they have few citations and he's hardly ever first or last author. WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC are both failed. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychology, and Michigan. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found this through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators but the article does not even assert academic notability; it appears to be trying to claim that he is notable as a fine artist through having multiple works in notable collections. Fluxus is notable (and his connection to the movement can be documented [9]) but that does not give him inherited notability and he is not even mentioned on the Fluxus article. I'm not convinced that having copies of a newsletter kept in an academic library (see link above) is really the sort of thing that counts towards WP:ARTIST #4d, the way having individual paintings in major museums would count. He does have artworks, of a scale that would definitely count to #4d if they were in major museums [10] but the Coon Rapids Sculpture Park is not a major museum. If we could find similarly significant individual works by the subject, in multiple notable and bluelinked museums, I would likely have a different opinion, but my searches did not turn up any. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not finding any evidence of notability online. The talk page shows a nomination for a speedy delete in 2006, removed because an editor claimed they were still creating the article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not allegation of notability, much less evidence of either WP:PROF or WP:NARTIST. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 8 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. For failure to pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG criteria — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Rönnbäck

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

Doesn't seem to reach WP:NACADEMIC. All of the reference are to their own company website, own publication or the usual academic databases. Scopus shows H-factor of 5, with highest number of citation for any paper being 26, for a 2010 paper. The affiliation at Stockholm is unclear, as they have no web presence there (suggesting that they are not a principle investigator). The prizes look like routine conference early career development prizes, insufficient to establish notability. The maths book doesn't seem notable either. A merge to Anchor modeling could be considered (their most notable contribution perhaps), but wouldn't help the subject at that page. Klbrain (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a bit harsh. Is there no other notability criteria that can be deemed suitable? Sauer202 (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Computing, and Sweden. Skynxnex (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly does not pass any WP:PROF criterion (and in particular not #C1, because the citations are not high enough in a high-citation field). He (or someone with his name) apparently won some local teaching award in 2010 [11] but that doesn't pass #C2. We have no independent in-depth coverage of him needed for notability through WP:GNG and my searches didn't turn up any. One book would not be enough for WP:AUTHOR and we don't have any of the published reviews of it that (together with reviews of other books) could be used for notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: He is one of the persons "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" of anchor modeling.
Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:PROF. The local teaching award is in neurology, so it was probably awarded to this Lars Rönnbäck. Sjö (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you follow the connected Wikidata item (which was available at the time of your comment), you will see that you are confusing Q125678771 Lars Rönnbäck (data architect) with Q76738550 Lars Rönnbäck (Swedish neuroscientist). Sauer202 (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No. I pointed out that there is a neuroscientist with the same name, and that it probably was the neuroscientist that recieved the award. That is the opposite of confusing them, so your patronizing is uncalled-for. Sjö (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but my point is that the article has never claimed that he received a neurology award. Sauer202 (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is one of the inventors of anchor modeling, a well-known data warehouse architecture, and is an active contributor in various open professional and social media channels about data warehouse architecture. I find it very weird that this should not meet any general notability criteria? Is this a competition about finding reasons to delete articles? Sauer202 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Our anchor modeling article is entirely primary-sourced, and although searches for that term in Google Scholar have many hits, many of them appear to be for an unrelated technique in audio signal processing. I am not convinced that this is a significant enough contribution to give its inventor inherited notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't view anchor modeling as primarily academic, but primarily applied. It is true that the Wikipedia article about anchor modeling is sparse (and I plan to develop it further), but that can not be held against its creator. Anchor modeling is open source, and its concepts are taught independently by Nikolay Golov at Harbour.Space University.[12] Nikolay has many interesting videos on YouTube with interesting comparisons of data vault and anchor modeling. Anchor modeling is the only data warehouse modeling technique that is 6NF, and therefore I think notability is inherited to its contributor. Sauer202 (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think it's not academic work that he might be notable for, then you need to go through our notability criterion for people notable for non-academic work, WP:NBIO. That requires independent publications that provide in-depth coverage of the person, seemingly even harder to reach in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add independent sources. Can you make a new assessment of whether it meets the threshold? Sauer202 (talk) 08:48, 4 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 delete‎ per WP:CSD#G7. The nominator is the page creator; there are no substantial content edits by others; and there have been no other !votes calling for a different outcome. If desired, undeletion may be requested at WP:REFUND. ^Complex/_Rational 19:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deugro

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

So I created this page back in 2019, thinking that this company, being big, should have a WP page. However, since then, it has been tagged for notability issues. It might be best to remove it, as if a German company doesn't have an article on German WP, it likely isn't worth having on English WP at all. Others might perceive it as a paid article, which it is not. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Germany. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be speedied under G7. The only edits from other people are some minor cleanup. Might do an actual comment later if I don't miss it though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:21, 4 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abisola Kola-Daisi

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

A Before search does not bring up much to establish notability. Princess of Ara 15:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Nigeria. Princess of Ara 15:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and has not been discussed in reliable sources. Being the special adviser to Nigeria's Minister of Budget and Economic Planning isn't a position that is inherently notable. Her father being a senator doesn't mean that she is notable. The businesses she has founded aren't notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:27, 6 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Youth League (Scotland)

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

Unreferenced stub article, which I can not seem to find any significant coverage of. Mn1548 (talk) 15:25, 1 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 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Rugby league, and Scotland. Skynxnex (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find much on the ScotlandRL website - archive.org has copies of the page about the competition (link) and a news page giving the 2011 winners (link), but not enough to indicate it passes notability. EdwardUK (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable youth competition. Fails WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kosher (band)

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

I wasn't able to find much coverage. The band has an AllMusic biography, and this really short article in the Pitch. toweli (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Missouri. toweli (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is also the sizeable Allmusic review as well as a review on the important site Punknews [13]. Also, Ox Fanzine [14], Suburban Voice [15]. Am also noting a site Ink 19 that I've never heard of before. I searched for their 2001 album only. Geschichte (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for identifying more sources. There's also another article in the Pitch. It seems I hadn't searched well enough prior to nominating the article for deletion. toweli (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you now wish for it to be kept? Geschichte (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the band seems to be notable. toweli (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with the sources mentioned in this discussion. Air on White (talk) 06:55, 8 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 List of universities and colleges in Iloilo. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ACSI College-Iloilo

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

Subject's notability is questionable. Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of universities and colleges in Iloilo per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 4 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 List of universities and colleges in Iloilo. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ACSI College

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

Subject's notability is questionable. Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of universities and colleges in Iloilo per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 4 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 14:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Hounslea

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

He fails GNG. A newspapers.com search found nothing but mentions in match reports and the hysterical story about the time he ran on the pitch in full kit wearing a tie. Dougal18 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, very little to find, clearly fails the notability criteria. Govvy (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 21:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ballmer Peak

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

Not notable - the article is a 3 sentence stub about a joke from an xkcd comic, with two of the three sources used being from xkcd itself and the xkcd wiki. Doing a google search, it appears that there's little else about the topic besides the Observer article, outside of blog posts and other self-published sources. — Chevvin 22:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Distillery using this name, nothing for the web comic/meme thing that this article is about. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a section in Xkcd due to being notable enough for one source. Not notable enough for an article. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Xkcd article for reasons stated above: that multiple sources are used suggests the topic is notable enough for inclusion. RyanAl6 (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing opinion to Strong Keep after the previously made points. As said before, the sources meet the notability guidelines but the topic would be difficult to smoothly integrate into the Xkcd article. RyanAl6 (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: The page Alcohol-related brain damage covers the idea of the Ballmer Peak pretty well. Bluehalooo (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ballmer Peak is not mentioned at the proposed redirect target. Normally redirects should be mentioned at the target. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ballmer Peak is a humorous and intentionally incorrect claim contradicting the Alcohol-related brain damage page. It makes no sense as a redirect to there. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear it's wrong. We have academic studies to that effect... Hobit (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Webcomics and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ delete – There's nothing here, just a single study and report that uses the term. Should not be merged into xkcd either, that article already struggles with the many things that grew out of xkcd over the years. (The Observer article technically doesn't even really mention the webcomic btw). This topic probably doesn't meet medical inclusion criteria; it's quite serious to tell people (based on just a single study) that drinking alcohol can make you productive. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As argued above, Merge is obviously the right choice. Athel cb (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep
- [16] is an academic study which news reports [17] [18] have entire articles reporting on wrt this term.
- [19] is another study which looks at the same issue and references the topic.
- There are plenty of reliable, independent news articles which define the term. For example Tech Crunch and Venture Beat.
- There are books which define and explain the term. For example How We Sipped, Danced, and Stumbled Our Way to Civilization, Do Zombies Dream of Undead Sheep? and The Healthy Writer.

This has an academic paper, two news articles that cover that academic paper and many many many other references including books and another academic study. Way over our inclusion guideline. Hobit (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- @Hobit: That's a few more sources than I found. I'm worried if these tech sources and pop-science books don't meet WP:MEDRS... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair, but I don't think that bar is a bit high for an article covering a meme, even if the meme is health related. The point here isn't that it's true, the point is that it's a notable idea. And we prove notability by sources. But Medicine is something I've only edited a bit around here, so I'll defer to the experts. Hobit (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MEDRES isn't relevant because this is not a medical article. Per the lead sentence: "The Ballmer Peak is a humorous concept..." Dan Bloch (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then why are we citing scientific studies? The Observer article seems to be presenting fairly direct advice: drinking alcohol can in fact increase your productivity. I recognize that this is humorous, but to me that makes it a scarier vector for misinformation. "We wouldn't have an article on this if it wasn't funny" would be a really bad sign. For the record, however, I don't quite know and also want to defer to someone with more experience in that field. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge: leaning~~ delete. I don't think there's any argument that the above sources qualify this for GNG through SIRS. Let's stick to our scope and leave this to urban dictionary and the like. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Draken Bowser: Could you clarify how they don't meet SIRS? The books are are fairly short (a paragraph) but define the term with a bit of history so may well be significant. The other parts are clearly met as far as I can see. The news articles meet all 3. The research papers could be argued to be primary I guess, but "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event". They are close to *an* event (their research) but are secondary in this context. Basically asking for you to document why you think GNG isn't met when we have 7 sources listed. Hobit (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I consider it insufficient. Unless ctrl f fails me it's not mentioned in all of the sources, and included in one merely as an efn. Draken Bowser (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The bar is "multiple". It is mentioned in all but one. And that one is referenced by 2 of the others as being about this topic. Two of the sources are solely on the topic (with the name). Two (the papers) cover the notion in detail but only one references it by name. The three books all discuss it by name. Hobit (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It's nowhere near in-depth. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question – If merged into xkcd, what would the addition looks like. Would it be included in the "Academic research" section and say something like "A hypoethsized phenomenon linking alcohol consumption and productivity is named after an xkcd joke, the "Ballmer Peak""? Would such an addition be appropriate? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could go under the "Inspired Activities" section. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I see lots of opinions but no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Short-term productivity changes could be covered at Short-term effects of alcohol consumption but aren't explicitly. If they were, then that could be a merge/expansion target, where this term/concept could be referenced. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see some support for Merge/Redirect as a viable ATD, but no consensus as to a target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm saying that under WP:PAGEDECIDE, it makes more sense given the current sourcing to consider this a subsidiary topic under xkcd. In the future it might easily grow in significance to warrant a free-standing article. Scholarly articles are not the only indicia of notability, nor are they the sine qua non of freestanding notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Two studies into a specific type of influence of a depressant does not necessary make for a stand-alone article. I'm sure you could find a pair of studies for any part of the alcohol experience. The sourcing here is not comparable to our articles on Impact of alcohol on aging, Alcohol and cancer, Effects of alcohol on memory, Alcohol use and sleep, etc. It does feel like a subsection for Short-term effects of alcohol consumption if all we have is these two studies. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sure, but it does meet the requirements of WP:N, yes? I mean there are multiple, independent, reliable sources covering the topic. And that is the bar here? Hobit (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the original article. And with the help of Hobit‘s links in this thread, I added additional citations from Fortune, TechCrunch, and Venturebeat, including one where it was mentioned in an interview with Ballmer himself to bolster the SIRS case.

It’s not a medical phenomenon. It’s a satirical concept that is an Internet meme that has become significant enough that it is mentioned in multiple articles, including those that are about Ballmer (the one-time CEO of one of the largest companies in the history of the planet) himself. There is a news article (with video) on an event inspired by the topic of this article. If you were to merge it into something, it would be to Steve Ballmer, rather than xkcd, since the article coverage about Ballmer peak generally links it to Ballmer (in an interview, stock jump upon his retirement) and not around xkcd. But I don’t think it should be merged. I think it should just stay as an article. Jenny8lee (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. If absolutely needed, I would not oppose a redirect to an appropriate target, if you can find one. Bearian (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep − Article has been expanded since original AfD posting, now passes WP:GNG. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:00, 8 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!} 23:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dawpool

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

Redirect to Thurstaston, not notable stub. Orange sticker (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Orange sticker (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Orange sticker (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND, which says [e]ven abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Google Books has numerous sources which attest to a populated port village on the River Dee called Dawpool: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. See also [26]. Jfire (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree that the former settlement is historically notable, however the area is now known as Thurstaston, so I thought according to WP:MODERNPLACENAME the redirect would be appropriate. See Overchurch for similar. Orange sticker (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per sources added, it doesn't appear in the Domesday Book but it does still have some coverage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pope, Tennessee

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

Fails WP:GNG, as far as I can tell, fails WP:NPLACE. I couldn't find any other mentions of the place online. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Tennessee. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found Quite a Bit of Sources Showing that this is infact a community, it has a Chapel, a Cemetary, & a Post Office. It Is also shown on many maps.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33] 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding those sources. Still, as far as I can tell, none of those provide WP:SIGCOV of the location. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- WP:GEOLAND. Central and Adams (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please elaborate because GEOLAND says it ison a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're quoting the part of GEOLAND for not-legally-recognized places. This place is legally recognized, being listed in the USGS GNIS, so per the first GEOLAND criterion it's presumed notable, nothing about case-by-case consideration. Central and Adams (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is false, the GNIS is just a database of names that have appeared on maps. Consensus has found that it is not legal recognition and does not establish notability for a stand-alone article. Also see WP:GNIS. Reywas92^Talk 20:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also on USGS maps and it has a fire department. This is being legally recognized.Central and Adams (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't legal recognition either, the USGS map just list it because it's in GNIS. GNIS is deemed unreliable by the Wikipedia community. Plenty of places that are not legally recognized have fire departments, so no on that too. James.folsom (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Legal recognition means that a government acknowledges that it exists. Only governments create fire departments. The act of creating a fire department is legal recognition. Central and Adams (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are utterly incorrect on that point. In fact, community organized volunteer fire departments came first. Depending on the laws of the area, thee is governmental regulation and coordination, but they do not necessarily create fire departments. Mangoe (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are volunteer fire departments but they are sanctioned and authorized by government. There's no such thing as a non government-authorized fire department. This must be the case because fire departments need powers beyond those of private citizens, e.g. to break into houses. Such powers can only be granted by government. And if a fire department is authorized for a place by government then clearly the government recognizes the existence of that place. Central and Adams (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well I don't know what it is. It's old though. All the sources for this are not very reliable, and I've found nothing that describes it.James.folsom (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a legally recognized community, I don't know why this was even nominated in the first place. MemeGod ._. (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep - Per the Sources I Listed Above, and per the statement made by @Central and Adams. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Recognized unincorporated community. Reliable coverage shows that it is listed beyond just the GNIS, in that it has a recognized fire department, formerly had a school, is listed on census enumeration maps, and a USGS quadrangle is named after it. Needs expansion, but it hits the bare minimum for places notability. I see no need to AFD or draftify...it's okay to be a stub for the time being until it's expanded.nf utvol (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lots of WP:NOTINHERITED going on here. The claims above about the fire department are supposition, and I don't think they have always been true, not to say that thee is any evidence that they are true now. I've looked at the histories of various FDs around here, and I find no evidence they had to be approved back when most of them were founded in the 1920s. They had to be chartered as non-profit corporations, but that's a different matter. I can't find any information about the Pope VFD other than its address and that they have at least one truck; in particular there's no history. And like the firehouse, a school is not a settlement; they were not necessarily sited in towns. We've been over GNIS, and looking at the census map: well, where do you think they got their information from? Labels on maps simply do not cut it as an authority; that's one of the ways we got into the GNIS mess.

The problem is that you're focusing on things that towns often have, but which can be anywhere. We need direct testimony to a town, better than passing references because those have proven unreliable. Mangoe (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is some level of recency bias in arguing against the inclusion of this community...it isn't very important now, it barely exists, but that was not always the case. We have here an unincorporated community that, at some point in its past, has had a post office, a school, and a fire department, all public services serving this community and named after it. The standard you're applying here would effectively preclude most, if not all, unincorporated communities from being included in Wikipedia.

Regarding the VFD, there isn't much out there (no official site other than a Facebook page), but it is listed in the State of Tennessee's fire departments database (one of four volunteer departments in the county), as well as being the recipient of FEMA grants in the past. It's clearly more than just a chartered non-profit organization. And if we were trying to say that Pope as it currently exists is notable because of the VFD then that would be a NOTINHERITED issue, but we're using the existence of the VFD to show at least some level of governmental recognition of the unincorporated community.

I agree that the GNIS is, as you noted, not in and of itself establishment of noteworthiness, nor is inclusion in maps. Both maps and the GNIS can only verify that the place does, in fact, exist. This is an established and accepted rule on establishing notability that should not have been even mentioned above. The naming of a USGS quadrangle after that place is only a little more notable than just a passing dot on a map, but it does suggest some level of noteworthiness beyond just 'it is.' nf utvol (talk) 01:37, 8 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 14:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sister (band)

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

Band does not appear to meet WP:NMUSICIAN. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Florida. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 1 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 14:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhimanyu Singh Arha

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

The subject fails WP:NPROF and WP:NBIO. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per nom. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be resume. Fails notability. The professor's work is not notable that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice. RangersRus (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC) evidenced[reply]
Delete. I'm seeing only a handful of citations for a possible WP:NPROF case, and only passing mentions for GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks in depth coverage fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Guest House (TV series)#Mr. Shameem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Hafeez

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

The subject does not fulfill the criteria WP:ACTOR nor does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. A significant portion of the sources referenced lack reliability as per WP:RS while the rest are merely namechecks. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Guest_House_(TV_series)#Mr._Shameem: as it seems to be what he is remembered for; and add the refs there. Not opposed to keep as coverage might be enough for GNG. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:04, 4 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 12:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wahab Shah

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

The subject does not fulfill the criteria WP:ARTIST nor does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. A significant portion of the sources referenced lack reliability as per WP:RS. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 1 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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Asada

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. I'm not sure she qualifies as notable. Not to be confused with her younger sister, Mao Asada, who was an exceptionally successful skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Japan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no indication of a WP:BEFORE search that includes Japanese sources. However, even that is not necessary. A quick look at the Japanese article indicates numerous sources that mean she passes the GNG (largely for her work as a TV personality/actor/model after her skating career). DCsansei (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- The subject easily passes GNG and once again it's clear that the nominator failed to perform a WP:BEFORE search. JTtheOG (talk) 06:11, 4 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 12:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umer Aalam

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. Furthermore, majority of cited sources fails WP:RS. No evidence indicating significant involvement in notable films, TV dramas, etc. being in a film or TV drama does not make one inherently notable. Previously deleted under G5. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 1 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. ✗plicit 12:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Mariette

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

Only 2 articles link to this. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Sources confirm he's been a CEO but lacking WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, France, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a simple Proquest search for ""Bernard Mariette" yields a lot of international results over the last two decades. Was there a WP:BEFORE? Nfitz (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But how many of these are WP:SIGCOV? I see a number of routine company announcements. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there's some like that - perhaps even a majority! But look deeper. Where did you search during the BEFORE? What's wrong with the references C&A highlights below? Nfitz (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please give actual examples of sources that are indepth and satisfy WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Plenty of significant coverage found in Newsbank also. Many of the hits are low quality PR, but there are more than enough that aren't. E.g. "Quiksilver Retrenches Its Top Leadership February 12, 2008 LA Times," "Downhill Run March 19. 2010 The Deal," and "Trouble in the tube April 3, 2010 The Age". The LA Times piece is already used in the article, but the others aren't. Therefore meets GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with above editors. Enough news coverage exists to keep this one. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 16:27, 3 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 merge‎ to List of bicycle parts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bashguard

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

No refs on the page for many years. Appears to be a WP:DICDEF which would be difficult to expand and source properly. JMWt (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of bicycle parts. Sourcing a basic definition is easy enough, e.g. [34]. Jfire (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:50, 1 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 12:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer on Canadian television

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Of the sources, they are nothing but news announcements or guides, three of those are primaries and none of them assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Canada. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not a tv guide, Govvy (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 22:01, 3 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 12:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Alt

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only source that meets GNG criteria is the article from The Japan Times. Normally, I would probably draftify, but the article has already been accepted previously at AfC by User:14 novembre. Most of what I found online was not independent of the subject. GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, Japan, and United States of America. GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Video games, Anime and manga, Washington, D.C., and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 1 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 12:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambreen Salahuddin

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

This appears to be an WP:AUTOBIO created by a SPA Sar-e-dasht-e-gumaan (talk · contribs), likely the subject themselves, given the similarity between the username and one of their book titles. Having said that, the BLP fails to meet the WP:AUTHOR as the the subject's works do not seem to be noteworthy enough. The subject also clearly fails to meet basic WP:GNG. Therefore, this shamelessly written promo BLP should be thrashed. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Please delete this article; it clearly constitutes self-promotion and does not meet Wikipedia's criteria.

Crosji (talk) 16:37, 3 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 without prejudice to renomination or a merge discussion per WP:NOQUORUM. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basque trinquete

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

No refs on the page for many years. There are a number of unref claims on the page which could be removed per WP:V but I'm also unclear whether this is a duplicate page with content from another or something else altogether. There are WP pages in other languages but they don't have many refs and do not clear up the confusion. It feels like it could perhaps be merged with Basque pelota but I'm confused so this might not be appropriate for reasons I do not fully understand JMWt (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Argentina. JMWt (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this page is deleted, something will also have to be done with the Trinquete disambiguation page, which has only this entry and Valencian trinquet. Valencian trinquet also does not cite any sources, so could potentially fail notability as well. Bandit Heeler (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to a new chapter in Basque pelota. Sources exist on the web, so the article could probably be kept, but I agree that this would make more sense as a chapter in the parent article, which already has sections on the equipment used in the sport, so why not also on the court. You may like to note that notability does not rest on whatever citations have or have not been put in an article, but on what exists in the world outside. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Enough RS to satisfy GNG. For instance [35], [36]. This last is a doctoral thesis entirely about the Basque ball game which includes extensive discussion of the trinquete, including comparisons and contrasts with the fronton.Central and Adams (talk) 16:02, 1 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Lambert

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

Fails the notability guideline for people. PROD was removed. Sources are either not independent or do not provide significant coverage. – Teratix ₵ 05:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Australia, and New York. – Teratix ₵ 05:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she is a COO and has significant news coverage, as well as in-depth coverage (see citations for Fortune, NPR, Tearsheet) which meets WP:NBIO. Because she has a commonly used name, some of the news coverage for Lambert is hard to find. I added new citations since the AfD listing. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citations you have added are a classic example of a notability bomb – inserting a lot of insignificant references to create a superficial appearance of notability. For the benefit of other editors I will address each of them, but in future AfD discussions, instead of adding a dozen insignificant references and expecting other editors to pick through them, try to focus on a few excellent sources.
- Source 1 (Fortune) is an interview with Lambert that is too brief to constitute significant coverage and does not provide independent analysis of Lambert beyond her interview responses.
- Source 2 (NPR) is an obvious PR piece – if we dig a little deeper we find Lambert was elected to the NPR board, making this source non-independent and an obvious non-starter.
- Sources 3–8 and 10 are about various things Lambert's employers did. None of them provide significant coverage of Lambert herself, but rather mention her only in passing. Again, these obviously constitute a notability bomb.
- Sources 9 and 13 are profiles of Lambert for a conference she spoke at. These are obviously not independent sources.
- Source 11 is a press release, obviously not independent.
- The bulk of Source 12 (Tearsheet) is paywalled. I'm unfamiliar with Tearsheet, but looking at their About Us page brought me to this page explaining their services, where they describe their purpose as [helping] financial services and fintech firms create memorable and meaningful content and get it in front of their target readers and exhort prospective customers to let us craft your unique story in a way that’s memorable and provides value to your audience. I conclude Tearsheet is not an independent reliable source but rather a vehicle for advertorials.
– Teratix ₵ 07:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert does share her name with others but it is easy to account for this by using more precise search terms or skipping over sources that obviously don't refer to Lambert the executive. – Teratix ₵ 07:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 is not an interview, and source 2 has no date (also I don’t think source 2 is PR, because I would expect PR would mention her current employer, or her status at the NPR board for example). Source 12 is not paywalled for me, it has biographical details (and not an interview) but I was also not familiar with the site, and perhaps it is questionable like you say. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Fortune: Honestly, it doesn't really matter what we call it – the point is it contains very little substantive coverage of Lambert, and what little there is has clearly drawn on interview responses from Lambert or just directly quotes her. Bottom line: it's not a source that provides the significant coverage needed to contribute to notability.

On NPR: a profile that appears on the website of a company for which she serves as a board member, that opens by gushing Lambert is a visionary, outcome driven executive and calls her a transformational leader with a proven track record – you don't think that's PR? You think that's an independent source we should accept as key evidence of Lambert's notability? That's your honest and thoughtfully considered view? – Teratix ₵ 10:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Tearsheet article on Internet Archive. I also added it to the citation. S0091 (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PigeonChickenFish: Any further comment? – Teratix ₵ 15:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still meets WP:NBIO PigeonChickenFish (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on which specific sources? – Teratix ₵ 00:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are not in-depth and not WP:SIGCOV like routine company coverage. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on source review. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:38, 8 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 12:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Len Bathurst

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

WP:HOAX. No player with the surname Bathurst has played in the English Football League since the Second World War (verified via leading stats sites such as Soccerbase and Soccerway, the 2015 edition of the book listed under refs, and a similar player records book published in the 1980s). I also own the Rothmans Football Yearbooks for most of the seasons during his supposed career and none of them show a player of this name playing for the teams he was supposedly a regular with at the time. If this man does exist, he definitely didn't play professional football. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to have been created by one person, an account with one edit! Not so promising there. We can also ask SmartVandelay who knows about Northampton if a player like this name ever played for them. But if it is indeed a hoax then delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom, no evidence of this player existing. The one thing you can find online about him was almost certainly taken from Wikipedia. Sgubaldo (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If it is a hoax, it's one of the oldest extant ones on the platform, having existed for 12 and a half years. Sgubaldo (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once it's deleted, I will add it here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No mention of Bathurst in Crisp's Crewe Alexandra Match by Match (and I don't recall anyone by that name playing for the Alex in the 1980s). Paul W (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Thanks for everyone's work, all evidence points to this being a hoax. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Due to lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It has two interwikis in completely different languages. How to notify them? Geschichte (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: All evidence points to a hoax. Waqar💬 18:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Waqar (G3). Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 03:01, 8 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Granny (video game series)

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

Unfortunately non-notable as per WP:GNG on the basis of the lack of reliable sourcing and in-depth reviews. Know Your Meme and WikiHow are pretty cut and dry WP:USERG. A WP:BEFORE finds some brief analysis of a gameplay mechanic in the game in Game Rant [37] and some even briefer listicle-type assessments of the game in TheGamer [38] and Sportskeeda [39]. But I think this is well below the level of coverage needed as a whole if using the WP:THREE method. There isn't good guidance on notability for a series, but if there was one or two reviews out there for the other games, I would argue that a series such as this is not notable where (1) there's no in-depth coverage of the series as a whole body of work; and (2) none of the individual works in the series seem they would be independently notable. At any rate, open to views. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not promotion and requires notability for an article to be made. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not notable per WP:GNG like you said. TheWikiToby (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Out of respect for the article creator, just flagging that @Bennett1203: has added more sources to the article to "suppress deletion", although these seem to be the Steam and IMDb pages and the sources listed above. Of course they're definitely welcome to participate in the discussion if desired!

Courtesy pinging Bennett1203 in case they haven't seen this comment (it is unsigned so the ping didn't work). ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 18:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am well aware of this yet I didn’t think to reply! At this point, this article was something I did because I wanted to help Wikipedia, however you guys can decide the deletion. Bennett1203 (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate to say it, but I found no sources to complement WP:GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 19:19, 7 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Lukas

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

This ahs been in CAT:NN for over 14 years. I thought it was borderline, but I couldn't find enough coverage or significance to show he meets WPBIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nevada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 1 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zing Pop Culture

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

Most of the sources are press releases or routine. A search in google news finds much the same. Fails WP:NCORP. LibStar (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Popular culture, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom. Fails WP:CORP, none of the sources establish notability. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of notability with no sources to back up corporate claims. -Samoht27 (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CORP, no inherent or inherited notability. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no independent notability this should Redirect to its parent company EB Games Australia. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Montague

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

Non-notable congressional candidate. No plausible claim to notability, no coverage outside of routine campaign coverage from minor outlets. One of the most cut-and-dry cases I've ever seen. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Christianity, Florida, North Carolina, and Oklahoma. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Per nom, which I hate to use as a rationale, but there's really no significant coverage of this losing candidate. Central and Adams (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Hasn't even won a primary. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fairfax.org article is a proper source with significant coverage of him, but the rest are not so good. It may be WP:TOOSOON.Rustypenguin (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in political party primaries, but this is making and sourcing absolutely no credible claim that he had preexisting notability for any other reason. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but just being a candidate is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NPOL, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." Unfortunately, he doesn't meet WP:GNG either. This is WP:TOOSOON. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 18:17, 7 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 Darshan Raval#Hindi 2. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dard (album)

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

Does not establish notability. The references in the article are either to primary sources or to press releases disguised as news coverage. A quick check before the nomination did not turn up any more suitable sources to include. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and India. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Darshan_Raval#Hindi_2. RangersRus (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Darshan_Raval#Hindi_2. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was created by a sockpuppet account, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArjunKR92 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala, which should be merged into one case by an SPI clerk shortly. Courtesy ping for Justlettersandnumbers who declined the CSD G5 tag. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:11, 7 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 12:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KDGL-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kansas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No sources found, but I did wind up on a weird website circle when I first saw this though. --Danubeball (talk) 21:16, 5 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. Consensus is that the article fails to meet WP:NCORP or requires a complete rewrite. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vecteezy

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm surprised that User:Jamiebuba approved this page because this company has a long and torrid history of COI and uploading promotional pages to Wikipedia and this page seems no different to what has gone before. Sure, we've got Entrepreneur Magazine which might have been published independently of the subject but there are a lot of sources that don't count as RS like press releases, local newspapers and the dreaded TechCrunch the least independent source in the history of business journalism. I think it's safe to say that this one-man band, run of the mill, stock image supplier fails WP:NCORP and is hardly notable so fails WP:GNG. I am interested to see what crawls out of the woodwork in the ensuing discussion, though.Dafydd y Corach (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Photography, Companies, Websites, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Biz journal article is repeated in a Lexington newspaper and by Yahoo [40] so feels like a PR item. The rest of the sources given don't impress me. Oaktree b (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously needs a complete rewrite and shouldn't have been accepted in its current state, but these reviews [41] [42] seem like enough for a NCORP/NPRODUCT pass. – Teratix ₵ 14:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are some reviews from some good news organizations on subject. Enough to satisfy WP:NCORP.Chekidalum (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet NCORP although this type of writing shouldn't get past AFC. X (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the article is recase to be about the website but otherwise Delete. The topic of the article 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. Two sources mentioned above refer to reviews on the product/website of the company. Just to point out the obvious - if the topic of this article was about the website/product, these could be examined with a view to establishing the notability of the website/product, but those references do not establish the notability of the *company*. I'd also add that those references would not, in my opinion, meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the product either - both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate links and appears Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly Independent, failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing 13:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if the topic of this article was about the website/product, these could be examined with a view to establishing the notability of the website/product, but those references do not establish the notability of the *company*. Well, in that case we can write the article on Vecteezy the website instead. In fact, my understanding is that's how the article is written already.

both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate links this interpretation of independence is too demanding and is not supported by ORGIND. The actual reviews demonstrate more than enough deep and original analysis to qualify as significant independent opinion.

Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly Independent Well, these are two different allegations – being a blog would make it unreliable, not non-independent. They appear to have a strong editorial policy but looking through the rest of the site it does look like they're a bit of a one-man operation. On the borderline for me.

In any case there is also PetaPixel's review already cited in the article, which should settle it. – Teratix ₵ 15:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage somebody to consider recasting the article so that it is primarily about the product (the website) and if that were the case I believe it would pass GNG/NCORP as a topic and I've changed my !vote to reflect that. Sometimes it might appear that an article is about the product (i.e. the website) and not about the company, but for me that isn't the case here. The article includes a company template and omits key information about the product while including information which is relevant to company activity such as signing deals and agreements - sure they impacted the product but compare the thrust of the article with the reviews you've pointed to concerning the website. Those reviews write from the point of view of the website. The article omits any mention of features such as reverse image searching, or the recent incorporation of AI, or valid critcisms which have been written about. As it stands, for me, the topic is the company and the company fails GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing 09:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:56, 1 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 04:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Tan

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

Only once of the sources here is actual news coverage (Techcrunch) and it has a WP:COI issue, the rest are just WP:ROUTINE mentions of him. Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no coverage in WP:LIBRARY under various permutations of name associated term ("poet", "rentlord", "Evidence of the Senses", "Angeli, Archangeli", etc.). Jfire (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 1 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 04:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jang Myong-il

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:07, 1 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 04:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improper flaps

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

Not a notable concept in and of itself. Discussion I initiated at WP Aviation had an unanimous consensus this isn't appropriate as an article. One might be able to make an argument for a redirect. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:40, 1 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 04:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCVB-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Utah. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only actual source is NewsNet jumping on it. Now that I think about it, we should get a NewsNet affiliates article here. --Danubeball (talk) 21:14, 5 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 04:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furry, Mississippi

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

I could find no information whatsoever about this location besides the geological survey data-point. No such town exists on this site today, and as far as i can tell, has ever existed. As much as it pains me, whatever this actually was is non-notable. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. Samoht27 (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Onel5969, who prodded this in 2019, and TheCatalyst31, who contested that PROD. Queen of ♡ | Speak 05:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Rootsweb says it was named after "W.E. Furr". All I was able to find was mention as a road on a census document. Nothing to support a population ever existing in Furry. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete From the topos it appears to have been a rail spot. Mangoe (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find anything usefulJames.folsom (talk) 21:28, 5 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 04:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FundTool

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

Fails the notability guidelines for companies. Repeatedly deleted under G11. Creator has COI. Exclusively sourced to press releases and the company's own website. – Teratix ₵ 03:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Websites, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Non-notable spam. Previous attempts have been CSD'd. This is no better. Cited articles aren't even about the subject. DarkAudit (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problems with speedy deletion. – Teratix ₵ 16:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could potentially speedy even yeah. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References don't appear relevant, deletion might be the best course of action. Waqar💬 18:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per DarkAudit. Looks like G11 and possibly G4 as well. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 02:45, 8 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 List of television stations in West Virginia#Low-power stations. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 02:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWVW-LD

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and West Virginia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Station never originated a moment of original programming whatsoever. Nate • (chatter) 18:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to List of television stations in West Virginia#Low-power stations: it is mentioned there, so an {{R to list entry}} is a relatively-valid alternative to deletion. Not completely opposed to deletion either, though; there is only so much one can say — or expect any significant coverage of — a low-power station only known to carry full-time national services. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The "keep" !votes amounted to nothing beyond WP:ITSIMPORTANT arguments. The notability concerns were never adequately addressed. ✗plicit 04:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Deportivo de La Coruña season

AfDs for this article:

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

Not playing in professional division, does not appear to meet WP:SIGCOV under WP:GNG. Already deleted for same reasons in 2020. Crowsus (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Spain. Crowsus (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Even though they are in a lower division in the season in question, Deportivo La Coruña's notability is undoubted. Svartner (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per last AFD. Giant Snowman 20:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Svartner. Continuity in the coverage of a historically professional team is important in an encyclopedia. Anwegmann (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even know they are a notable club doesn't mean their seasons qualify under the SNG WP:NSEASONS, they are too far down the ladder now. So delete per notability on the season. Govvy (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This season is very notable because of the nature of it and the circumstances regarding the club at this time, as it entered a new era. - Cr7s 190.153.84.93 (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:03, 1 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 List of educational institutions in Noakhali. I think this is the closure y'all wanted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eklashpur High School

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

I waited patiently before starting this AFD. Firstly, the article doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT; No verifiable significant, independent, third-party reliable sources. I was thinking maybe the creator was on WP:ENN because other schools exist. While that aside, there is no importance for entry made by the school in question. Even if, I can't find source for it. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of educational institutions in Noakhali as WP:ATD. Jfire (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find what to merge. The other option is redirecting directly. How do you see that? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The establishment date and its second reference seem worth merging, as a correction to the currently listed date (1950) in List of educational institutions in Noakhali. Jfire (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Now redirect is fine. Jfire (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 4 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.