Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 1

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< August 31 September 02 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orhan Awatramani

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

Does not meet WP:NPERSON. The article relies primarily on trivial coverage from entertainment news and lacks significant independent sources that demonstrate sustained coverage or impact. Furthermore, the subject's primary notability appears to be tied to associations with celebrities, rather than achievements that would warrant a standalone article. Also the article has been deleted before. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 10:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: There are enough sources with significant coverage of the subject; BBC Marathi and the South China Morning Post are particularly promising. Clearly passes WP:GNG, GNG requires significant coverage of the subject, and these two coverages are not trival at all. And if I talke about the earlier AfD, it was just soft deleted means that was a PROD. GrabUp - Talk 11:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to add a few more points. First of all, this AfD does not fulfill WP:AFDHOWTO, as the nominator did not notify the author. Secondly, I want to counter the nominator’s claim that ‘the article relies primarily on trivial coverage from entertainment news.’ My response to this is, that a person related to finance or business will naturally not receive news coverage from entertainment sources, similarly this person will not get coverage from finance-related articles. It is perfectly normal for someone to receive coverage within their relevant niche. The important factor is whether the sources meet the criteria of WP:SIGCOV, which I believe is clearly satisfied in this case. GrabUp - Talk 11:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad for forgetting to notify the author, it slipped my mind. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 12:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @M S Hassan: You again forgot to add '(2nd nomination)' while linking to the discussion on the author's talk page, You linked to the first AfD of this article. I recommend using WP:TWINKLE to nominate any articles in the future, as it will automate everything. GrabUp - Talk 12:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, why it's kept for deletion, without any valid reason. @M S Hassan kindly confirm before any deletion. Muffeda (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Orhan Awatramani is a notable public figure with significant media coverage in reputable sources. He has a strong social media presence and cultural influence, particularly within certain communities. The article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, supported by reliable, independent sources. Vakanada Putin (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC) - blocked sock[reply]
Keep : it's an notable person. Muffeda (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muffeda: What made you come here? Your first edit was to vote here! Did someone ask you to vote? New editors typically don’t vote in AfD unless they are specifically told to. GrabUp - Talk 05:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC) - blocked sock[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some participation from non-sockpuppets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: There's obviously some sort of nonsense going on here, but the subject is clearly notable. Even ignoring all publications that could possibly be construed as WP:NEWSORGINDIA, there is still enough in-depth coverage to meet GNG (see GrabUp's comment above). The refbombing and blatant promotion needs to be cleaned up, though. C F A 💬 03:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The BBC and the South China Post seal the notability deal, the coverage from Indian media is helpful, but these show critical notice outside of their local area, which is more than enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a single view to delete, including from the nom, this is basically a merge discussion masquerading as an AfD. Call this a "Keep" or a "No consensus", as you wish; in either case, nothing is to be done here, and it will be a waste of time to renominate within less than six months. Owen× ☎ 05:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publius Enigma

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

The Publius Enigma was a riddle created to market the 1994 Pink Floyd album The Division Bell. It received some coverage in reliable sources, which is summarised in the Division Bell article under "Release and promotion". However, there isn't enough material out there to justify a standalone article, and much of the current content is uncited (and I can't find coverage of it in reliable sources). I think this should be redirected to The Division Bell per WP:NOPAGE. Popcornfud (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to The Division Bell#Release and promotion per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It was a standalone article for many years and satisfies the GNG. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Brain Damage Magazine, at least in its original print incarnation, is a reliable source for Pink Floyd related topics. It's also not very collaborative to delete cited content right before submitting something for deletion... Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I deleted content that was cited to unreliable sources. This was an attempt to improve the article before nominating it for deletion, not to make it worse. Brain Damage is a fanzine and can't be used as a source on Wikipedia, nor can it be used as evidence of notability. Popcornfud (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added two RS... Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That does look better now. I'm a bit concerned about the remaining citations to faroutmagazine - that's not an actual magazine, it's just a web site, and the article cited looks very much like it was just paraphrasing the WP page as it stood at the time. The fanzine sources would be better for this, if it's just a direct quote of what a band member said in an interview. (I'm not implying that the quotes are inaccurate, just that we should give an actual source rather than citogenesis.) Adam Sampson (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Division Bell is already fairly long and the sources in this article look ok after the recent improvement made by editors at Afd. Ben Azura (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Division Bell#Release and promotion. This section can cover the promotion in more depth and is not nearly near capacity. If warranted by an overabundance of sourcing, it can be split summary style. But for now, there is clearly enough room to cover this within the parent topic without warranting an immediate split. If there are sources that discuss this marketing in specific separate from the album, they should be brought here for discussion. czar 18:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to The Division Bell#Release and promotion. There are sufficient references to keep the topic, but it is of insufficient notability (or apparent public interest) to retain as a standalone article. It should be merged into the album's article as an interesting side-note to the record company promotion.CapnPhantasm (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As others have noted, the Division Bell article is, itself, already quite long, and this topic is very specific and focused. It's better for users searching for information on this (hunt, hoax, phenomenon, etc.) to be able to find it directly without having to sift it out of the main article. DBalling (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DBalling. The main article is too long already. It’s an oddball article that stands noon its own, and like a lot of lists, it’s a navigation aid for our readers. There are issues with this article, but normal editing processes can take care of it. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you clarify what you mean by this? I'm not sure how this can be described as a "navigation aid". -- asilvering (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge selectively. I'm not persuaded that the sourcing here -- which seems to boil down to two news articles and some passing mentions -- constitutes an independently notable subject or gives us too much encyclopedic material to fit at the Division Bell article. The Division Bell#Release and promotion already has a nicely informative paragraph on this event, and the only additional information at Publius Enigma appears to be the overly-long quotes which are not very encyclopedic. I would not oppose a merge in principle, but I personally cannot identify any information that I think needs to be merged, so I personally support a redirect. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can these sources be moved into the article? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Gunawan

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

Fails WP:NBAD and WP:GNG. His achievements are all at junior level and at the moment not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. zoglophie•talk• 14:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Ho, Kelly (2020-01-06). "Diocesan Boys' School student and badminton star Jason Gunawan follows in his father's footsteps". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.

      The article notes: "At some point, every athlete dreams of making it to the Olympics, but local badminton prodigy Jason Gunawan has had his heart set on competing at the sporting event since he was four years old. Jason, who celebrated his second consecutive win in the boys’ singles event at the All Hong Kong Schools Jing Ying Tournament last Monday, says he has been dreaming of Olympic glory ever since he watched Chinese player Lin Dan take gold at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. ... A love of badminton runs in Jason’s family. His father, a Chinese Indonesian, used to play for the Jakarta province team. As a child, Jason would head to the local sports centre with his father every Sunday to practise, eventually earning a spot on the Hong Kong junior team. He now trains 30 hours a week at the Hong Kong Sports Institute, but still finds time to practise with his dad, his biggest supporter."

    2. Cheung, Ka-Wa 徐嘉華 (2024-05-25). "羽毛球｜ 由外圍賽打至8強止步 吳英倫下月生日願望：今年闖入世界排名頭30" [Badminton｜ From qualifying to the top 8, Jason Gunawan's birthday wish next month: to break into the top 30 in the world this year]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.

      The article notes: "父母是印尼華僑的Jason，曾於2020年以最年輕球手（當時16歲）奪全港錦標賽男單冠軍，可惜一場疫情斷送足足3年的青少年比賽，直到2022年5月才開始由低（國際挑戰賽級別）打起，... Jason今年初繼續參加「國際挑戰賽」，亦遇到一些「超級300」的比賽，世界排名由年初105位到本月泰國公開賽（超級500）時是96位，他在該賽的16強，遇上世界排名第5的日本球星奈良岡功大，雙方拉鋸3局，港將只在決勝局輸「刁時」（21:11、 15:21、20:22)，世界排名升至本周的83位。"

      From Google Translate: "Jason, whose parents are Indonesian overseas Chinese, won the men's singles championship in the Hong Kong Championships in 2020 as the youngest golfer (16 years old at the time). Unfortunately, a pandemic ruined the youth competition for three full years, and it was not until May 2022 that it started. Starting from a low (International Challenge level),... Jason continued to participate in the "International Challenge" at the beginning of this year, and also encountered some "Super 300" competitions. His world ranking increased from 105th at the beginning of the year to this month's Thailand Open (Super 500). ) was ranked 96th at the time. In the top 16 of the tournament, he met Japanese star Kodai Naraoka, who was ranked fifth in the world. The two sides went back and forth for 3 games. The Hong Kong player only lost to "Diao Shi" in the decisive game (21:11, 15 :21, 20:22), the world ranking rose to 83rd this week."

    3. Chan, Kin-wa (2020-11-15). "Jason Gunawan crowned youngest-ever Hong Kong men's badminton champion at 16". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.

      The article notes: "Jason Gunawan became the youngest-ever men’s singles champion at the annual Hong Kong badminton championships at Kowloon Park Sports Centre on Sunday, thanks partly to his decision to turn to full-time training amid the pandemic. Just three months after cutting short his secondary school studies to pursue a full-time sporting career at the Sports Institute, the 16-year-old teenager reigned supreme in the three-game final against Chan Yin-chak, winning 21-19, 17-21, 21-13 to put himself in the record books."

    4. Chan, Kin-wa (2020-12-01). "Young gun Jason Gunawan sets sights on winning Olympic gold for Hong Kong". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.

      The article notes: "Outside of Hong Kong there is badminton legend Tony Gunawan, the 2000 Sydney Olympic men’s doubles champion of Indonesia. Here in Hong Kong there is 16-year-old Jason Gunawan, a fast-rising talent now setting his sights on becoming another Olympic gold-medal winner like his namesake. ... Gunawan will not be present in Tokyo either as he is still competing in junior events, but the 2024 Paris Games will be his first attempt at making the step up to Olympic level, with the Los Angeles Games four years later his major target for a medal. ... Born in Hong Kong with an Indonesian-Chinese father, Gunawan was destined to make a name in badminton before he was even born, he said."

    5. Ng, Chia Yin (2024-05-24). "Jason: I thank coach Wong for helping me grow". The Star. Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.

      The article notes: "Hong Kong’s rising star Jason Gunawan appreciated coach Wong Choong Hann’s role in the growth of his career after checking into the men’s singles quarter-finals in the Malaysian Masters. ... Jason, who will be turning 20 next month, is expecting a tougher job against world No. 19 Lu Guangzu of China next but looking forward to gaining invaluable experience."

    6. Chiu, Tsz-chun 趙子晉 (2023-09-14). "羽毛球．香港賽｜李卓耀不敵基斯迪衛冕失敗　吳英倫力追世界距離" [Badminton: Hong Kong Open｜ Lee Cheuk Yiu Fails to Defend Title Against Kistkidis, Jason Gunawan Closes the Gap to World Rankings] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.

      The article notes: "吳英倫決勝局初段把握對方情緒不穩，多次放高波予甘克起板，Jason曾經領先5：2，甘克一度滑倒倒地。惟Jason體力有所下降，... 年僅19歲的吳英倫，以往主力出戰青年賽為主，就算越級挑戰成年組也是大多是國際挑戰賽級別，主場的香港賽是他生涯首個BWF 500分的賽事。"

      From Google Translate: "Jason Gunawan took advantage of his opponent's emotional instability in the early stage of the decisive game and sent high waves to Gan Ke several times. Jason once led 5:2, but Gan Ke once slipped and fell to the ground. But Jason's physical strength has declined... Jason Gunawan, who is only 19 years old, has mainly competed in youth competitions in the past. Even if he jumps to the adult group, most of them are international challenge competitions. The Hong Kong competition at home is his first BWF 500 in his career. points competition."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jason Gunawan (traditional Chinese: 吳英倫; simplified Chinese: 吴英伦) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, Except for the first source, the coverage of him can't be written as "Significant", which are some scant detailing about him in 2-6. He is a booming player for sure, and we got to wait for him to become a noteworthy figure in future. zoglophie•talk• 10:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sources—the South China Morning Post and Sing Tao Daily articles—provide substantial coverage about the subject, which enable him to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The other sources also provide significant to less significant coverage about him (they discuss him in their headlines and cover biographical details about him in the article). The sources all contribute to notability because Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Cunard (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting could an editor review these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 00:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Khoury Sleman

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

I don't find that he meets the notability policy; I couldn't find any sources. فيصل (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As WP:OUTCOMES states: "Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else." So even though clergy are considered notable, there still have to be sources for all of the info in the article. Lamona (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is questioning whether he is a bishop. The question is whether there are sources that support any more than that one fact. Lamona (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That fact is sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we remove all of the unverified information in the article, we are left with one line: "On 14 March 2015 Elias Slaiman resigned his office as Maronite Eparch of Latakia." The rest is unverified. The one source gives dates, such as the date he was ordained, but says nothing about the pope assigning him to Latakia, nothing about anything in the second paragraph. Following WP:BLP all of that must be removed unless sources can be found. I've marked those paragraphs accordingly. Lamona (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. asilvering (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barney McLure

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

Non notable player, would fall under WP:NSPORT. No sources beside passing coverage in stat sheets, and an obituary. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, oh boy, I think I clicked on the wrong button the first time. Oaktree b (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I appreciate the Trove references, but to my mind they do not go far enough beyond what is in article to establish notability per WP:NSPORT: as a young man from Jindabyne he was selected to play for a club side; he played injured and had to come off; he was chosen to play fullback; he didn’t get a suspension after being sent off. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Durán

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Mexican footballer. JTtheOG (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2016 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina#District 6. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Glidewell

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

Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG; politicians are not presumptively notable by virtue of their candidacy in a notable election, the have to at least win the seat or pass other notability criteria to merit an article. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gio Calixtro

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this American soccer player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 23:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiromu Kori

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

Requesting on behalf of and in conjunction with RossEvans19: does not meet WP:ATHLETE: no secondary coverage. Only played in lower leagues for a couple years. There's also nothing in the article on the Japanese Wikipedia that could be used to support. Dan • ✉ 23:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maren Westin

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

Does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL. Subject is a college basketball player with no individual coverage or awards. Dan • ✉ 22:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uzair Sher Khan

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

Fails WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO. Mayors are simply not presumptively notable, especially for a city/town like Havelian. They have to pass other general notability guidelines which Khan comes short in all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Saint Andre

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

I am having trouble finding anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Mexican footballer. JTtheOG (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Ghulam

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

WP:BLP of a beauty pageant contestant, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for beauty pageant contestants. The attempted notability claim here, that she won Miss World Canada (but not the international final), would be fine if the article were properly sourced, but is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG — note, for comparison, that most winners listed in the Miss World Canada article are unlinked names, and only a few of them actually have their own standalone biographical articles independently of the list.
But the referencing here is entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, such as her own self-published website and a photo of her in a stock photo repository and a short promotional blurb on Zimbio, with absolutely no GNG-worthy sourcing shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Knox

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

This DJ/TV host fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. All sources are primary-source official bios or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in other coverage. No WP:SIGCOV appears to be available. (NB: It is listed as a second nomination, but the first nomination's article was likely about a different Jay Knox.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Otaku no Seiza: An Adventure in the Otaku Galaxy. Star Mississippi 00:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Gonin Musume

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

The only source I found on Google was already in the article. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 00:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Langdon

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. A search under his name and "Anthony Langdon" yielded no sources. I also searched Australian database trove and it only yielded two 1 line mentions of this person. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 23:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States presidential firsts

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

There's some standing consensus that these lists are not encyclopedic because they lack a SELCRIT and so therefore must always be definitionally WP:SYNTH.

The previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_United_States_presidential_firsts is well worth a read as it was a massive back and forth that ended in no consensus. Since then, other articles have narrowly ended in deletion:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Indian_prime_ministerial_firsts Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Mexican_presidential_firsts Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Philippine_presidential_firsts

I'm of the view that this kind of article can never ever, in any circumstances, be a good article because it will always be a pile of random information.

BrigadierG (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, the keep !votes outnumber the deletes, but the deletes make a more policy-based case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should not have been relisted, it should've been closed as kept. Relisting it smacks of fishing for a certain outcome pbp 15:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 00:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Furqan

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

A mayor with not much media coverage. Doesn't seem notable per WP:NPOL. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Furqan is the mayor of a city with over 800,000 people and there are many Hindi language sources; Dainik Jagran, Amar Ujala, Dainik Bhaskar, Jansatta, and Aaj Tak Microplastic Consumer (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Nickles

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

Does not pass GNG. All sources are either primary such as election results or his LinkedIn page. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is so small and the number of sources are so limited. You probably do not have any relation to the article anyways. There is absolutely no reason to delete this article. AlexIAm1415 (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is minimal coverage or significant articles about his activities as mayor in the local press. Given the small size of the town, there is little evidence to support widespread notoriety or notability. Saliham (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadik Basha

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

Despite playing in 3 top tier matches in Albania, I can't find any evidence of a WP:SPORTBASIC pass. The best that I can find are passing mentions in Panorama 1, Panorama 2 and Argjiroja. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nagoya Bunri University

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

The only source is a dead link. The article was created when Wikipedia was growing rapidly and had different standards. Private universities must now show evidence of passing WP:NCORP. I searched, albeit in English, for references and failed to find suitable ones. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rama Pratama

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

Stats stub with notability concerns. I can't find anything that would support a passing of WP:SPORTBASIC or any other guideline. Bola is a mere squad listing, Tribun News is a brief quote, and Detik News is another squad listing. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:SPORTSBASIC, and only trivial mentions in minimal sources. Azarctic (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sahadevesvara Siva Temple

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

Long-standing, completely unsourced article. Appears to be more of a bullet list of information rather than an encyclopedic article, nothing establishing notability. The only thing resembling a source that is given is iii) Source of Information: Because of its architectural features and use of cement mortar. to justify a 20th-century dating.

Speedy deletion has been proposed previously, but the article doesn't actually fit any speedy deletion criteria. Just a poor, unsourced article with no evidence of notability for now. Only source I could find was a mention in INTACH Heritage Project Survey and Documentation of Lesser Known Monuments of Bhubaneswar, Part- 1, Orissa, 2006 by the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is also a very recently built temple comparatively, not historical at all, which is a sign there are likely no sources. The creator made two other pages that have similar concerns (though at least someone fixed the formatting...). Also as the person who found this page this is the worst result I have ever gotten from clicking random page PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling and seat projections for the 2029 European Parliament election

edit
Opinion polling and seat projections for the 2029 European Parliament election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Way too soon and the sources say absolutely nothing about 2029 projections. Per WP:FUTURE, nothing can be said about th[is election] that is verifiable and not original research. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Ziaul Haq (Juyel)

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

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:NPOL 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 18:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There is no presumption of notability for mayors under WP:NPOL. It is possible for them to be notable by meeting the WP:GNG, but Bauphal is a municipality with a population of 11,000-12,000, and it would be highly unusual for a mayor of a Bangladeshi town that size to be notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are multiple, mostly reliable sources. The first three are independent of him, but not intellectually independent of each other – they all say essentially the same thing: that he's the first mayor, elected on 22 May 2012, and unopposed in January 2022. The last four are independent, but are primary sources that say little about him: he spoke at a rally, his supporters clashed with opponents, he is one of a large group of people charged in connection with violence at local political events. All of that is par for the course for a Bangladeshi politician, and it may take years for the courts to decide the cases. What the sources lack is significant coverage of him and any analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts. So does not meet WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. asilvering (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi belt buckle pistol

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

This page and the item it discusses are basically just rumours. They are not notable and there are no primary sources that prove these guns ever existed. Almost every existing modern source just links back to the one Forgotten Weapons YouTube video about the gun, and the others are totally unsourced and also no better than urban legend websites. There's no proof these were ever produced, that the ones that exist aren't modern replicas, and even if they were there aren't enough reliable sources to prove it. Not the sort of thing that belongs on Wikipedia. Archimedes157 (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is very notable, but there are some relevant patents and a listing in the list of curios and relics that are classified as collector's items, not as weapons in the US. I can't see much of a connection to WW2 or to the SS from those sources, and share the concern that the sourcing is generally inadequate. Actually, the Forgotten Weapons Youtube video in the article acknowledges the lack of any proof for a connection between Louis Marquis and the Nazis. Overall this is a delete at least under this title as there is no proof that genuine copies existed. —Kusma (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 GameSalad. Star Mississippi 23:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gravonaut

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

Little reliable source coverage outside of these sources: [9], [10] TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 17:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added those sources into the article, did some other tweaks as well. The standards for inclusion on mainspace have, at least in my opinion, definitely changed since when I first made this article in 2012. I would say keep with the added sources/changes. But I think some of this information can at least be reworked into GameSalad. Soulbust (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 programmes broadcast by Sony SAB#Reality/non-scripted programming. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wah! Wah! Kya Baat Hai!

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

Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 15:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was ‎ draftified. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Klaue

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

Only one of the listed sources is a secondary source, the rest link to short bios of institutions he worked for or his own writing, so this article does not meet GNG. I've done a search and don't see any evidence that his work is significant enough to meet WP:NACADEMIC at this time. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Page author has requested it to be moved to Draft space to allow more time for them to work on it and try to establish notability, which I have done. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Black River Group. asilvering (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black River Formation

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

No effective references. Reason given for revert is neither a policy or a guidelines and duplicates content from in Black River Group. scope_creepTalk 14:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deletion should be based on Notability not article quality Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. As has been told to me before, sources need not already be in the article to prove notability, heck I've nominated articles for deletion that end up being kept based on sources not in the article. Here are some sources for notability: [11], [12], [13]. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing the article is not notable. There is another article in much more detail that this article is duplicating, based on your sprurious read of non-policy or even guidelines. Yes that is true, but not when the article is under review. We don't leave the thing blank for the reader to somehow magically divine whether the article is true or not or is even if its encyclopeadic. It is really sloppy practice not to reference it correctly. scope_creepTalk 16:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your deletion argument is about quality, which is literally listed on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article can be merged into the Black Rock Group as this is the same stratigraphic unit as it is known in in United States. there is an abundance of published papers that can be found in Google Scholar for "Black Rock River Formation". Paul H. (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Black River Formation is the name of only part of the Black River Group. This article just needs expansion, not merging. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Black River Group. One of the sources there notes that "Black River Formation", "Black River Group", and "Black River Limestone" are synonymous. No evidence or sources have been presented to justify the assertion that the Formation constitutes only a part of the Group. While the lack of current development in the article doesn't render it subject to deletion for lack of notability, it is a factor to be considered under WP:PAGEDECIDE, and I think merger is a suitable outcome under those criteria, which could be reconsidered if or when the content about this topic is expanded. Choess (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Choess:@Paul H.: I didn't see that about the synonymous terms. There is about 6 other micro articles in this series. I will check if any of the others have that equality. If not they will be heading for Afd. Ideally they would all be a merge result as they are very similar and based on false premise. scope_creepTalk 11:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source, literally shows that the Black River Formation is the term used for the section in Michigan only (in the US at least), hence its name for a part of the group (a geographical part is still part of the group). Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure I follow your logic. You're saying that the BRG and the BRF are both the same stratum, but we should have different articles for them because the stratum is only called the BRF when it enters the borders of Michigan? Choess (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BRF is the name given to the thin undifferentiated sections of BRG, so its not the name changes at the border essentially, its the name given to a part that is undifferentiated due to thickness rather than geographical area, its just that that matches up to being only in Michigan. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Choess:@Scope creep:The details of "Black River" usage can be found in the "National Geologic Map Database Geolex — Unit Summary" for "Geologic Unit: Black River". "Black River Group" is used in six states (NY, PA, WV VA, IN,and VT); "Black River Limestone" is used in seven states (IL, IN, MI, NY, OH, PA, and WV); and "Black River Formation" is used in one state (MI); and in Quebec. Notice that in some cases, the two different names are in usage in the same state. The usage of other stratigraphic units can be checked in "National Geologic Map Database Geolex Search".

Canada has an online geological lexion of stratigraphic nomenclature called "WEBLEX Canada". It lists "Black River Group" as the accepted usage and shows it has the same type locatity as the "Black River Group", "Black River Formation", and "Black River Limestone". Paul H. (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a really handy. I would struggled to interpret it even if I found these sites. Would it be ok to ping yourselves to take a look at the other 5 or 6 articles, save them going Afd, maybe do a merge request on each of them? It save a lot of time. scope_creepTalk 16:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is fine to ping me. I would be glad to take a look. Paul H. (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BRF is the name given to the thin undifferentiated sections of BRG, so its not the name changes at borders, its the name given to a part that is undifferentiated due to thickness rather than geographical area, its just that that matches up to being only in Michigan (in the US) and parts of Quebec. Thus the names aren't actually synonymous just used for different parts of the group. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Gelboys

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

Simply fails WP:NBAND, couldn't find any source to establish that or generally WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Munish Kumar Raizada

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

No significant coverage, and no actual claim to notability. bonadea contributions talk 13:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kamlesh Patel (Daaji)#Books. Consensus is against keeping this article, and no valid argument against a redirect as an ATD. Owen× ☎ 10:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wisdom Bridge

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

Only one source listed is an actual review/has outside commentary and what seems to be independence. I was unable to find anything else. A lot of the sources fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA which further confuses matters. Redirect to Kamlesh Patel (Daaji)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I contest this as the article as sufficient references as suggested per Wikipedia Policies for a book. The article has also been reviewed by other editors.Gardenkur (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references are press-release tier material which per NBOOK do not count for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The references are promo, paid coverage, wire stories, etc. I started clearing out the worst offenders to see if there was anything hiding in there, but it's just a WP:REFBOMB. If I cut all the not-qualifying coverage there won't be anything left. -- asilvering (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Although a lot of sources have been removed from this article since its nomination, a source review or current references would be helpful to see if WP:NBOOK is met as one editor is arguing (in a roundabout way).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. short wire article; looks like paid coverage
  2. not independent (by author of book)
  3. not independent (by author of book)
  4. has a byline, not short, not in an obvious ads-only section; the best source in the article at present, but it's still not... great
  5. not independent (by author of book)
  6. basically a celebrity endorsement? really don't think this is fully independent
  7. no byline, obvious marketing copy
  8. no byline, obvious marketing copy promo excerpt
  9. not sigcov

-- asilvering (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, asilvering. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Cunard. Thanks for your reply. Could you consider some of the below links:

1.https://indianexpress.com/article/parenting/learning/book-offers-9-principles-for-stress-free-parenting-8213322/ 2.https://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-network/the-wisdom-bridge-by-daaji-offers-nine-principles-to-life 3.https://www.educationworld.in/daajis-book-the-wisdom-bridge-turns-the-spotlight-on-raising-happy-families/ 4.https://indiaeducationdiary.in/new-book-the-wisdom-bridge-by-daaji-brings-focus-on-family-resilience-raising-happy-children-and-responsible-teenagers/ 5.https://www.frontlist.in/the-wisdom-bridge-nine-principles-to-a-life-that-echoes-in-the-hearts-of-your-loved-ones-by-kamlesh-d-patel 6.https://www.thedispatch.in/the-wisdom-bridge-by-daaji-is-the-perfect-guide-to-stress-free-parenting-and-raising-resilient-children-and-happy-families/ 7.https://worthfull.in/shop/the-wisdom-bridge/ 8.https://www.anuradhasridharan.com/2023/07/book-review-wisdom-bridge-by-daaji.html 9.https://www.kidsbookcafe.com/review-the-wisdom-bridge/

I request Cunard,Liz and asilvering to consider the above coverage in secondary sources and guide accordingly. We need to work on keeping the neutrality of Wikipedia platform than denouncing a particular subject on voting basis.thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing these sources. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Paid reporting in Indian news organizations is something I keep in mind when reviewing sources from Indian news organizations. As this is not an area where I'm experienced in, I'd like other editors to share their opinions on these sources. Cunard (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gardenkur, most of these are the sources I've already analyzed in my earlier comment. -- asilvering (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi asilvering. Thanks for your reply. I have requested maintaining the article based on Wikipedia guidelines for references. I think the article meets the criteria. I have an interest in Wikipedia platform and not working for any other reason.Thanks.Gardenkur (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Essense club

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

The article makes no claim of notability. Cabayi (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Morton Mackay

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

Unable to verify a single fact. Fails WP:SIGCOV. I was planning to update the article to a modern standard but can't find anything. Nothing. scope_creepTalk 12:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reeves Cini

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

Potentially fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. The article is currently sourced to a stats page and Facebook, both of which clearly are not acceptable. My own searches yield nothing better than the likes of Match Centre and Times of Malta, which do not provide significant enough coverage for a stand-alone article on Cini. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're struggling to find news sources that discuss Cini in significant depth then the likelihood is that they don't exist. Also worth noting that Wikipedia is not a place for making your favourite footballers 'more recognisable'. You should only be writing about footballers that already have plenty of coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also another thing that makes me MORE heartbroken about this situation is that an article like Dexter Xuereb is allowed and mine is NOT. WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY ARTICLE!?. Just wanted to make footballers more recognizable :( GabrylMT(Talk to Gabryl) 14:51, 1 September 2024 (CEST)
  • Feel free to nominate Dexter Xuereb for AfD if you don't find sources for that article. Two differences compared to Cini that I see: 1. Xuereb has made more professional performances, 2. He has made an appearance for the senior national team. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viewquake

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

Reviewed for NPP. Does not pass WP:NEO. Sourced to a post on Lesswrong (a blog) and the guy who made up the word. This could maybe be on Wiktionary but I don't know how that project operates. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A message has been added to the Talk page.Infogiraffic (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch(talk) 10:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Infogiraffic The sources you have added do not help it pass notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @PARAKANYAA, at least 900k people seem to have been exposed to the term, assuming they made it up to Hanson's exposition of the term in this video. Sounds quite notable to me. Or do you have specific requirements in mind for notability that I am unaware of? I can also list some discussions on Hanson's blog Overcoming Bias as a reference, if you'd like... Infogiraffic (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Infogiraffic Notability of terms is not about the perceived popularity of the term, for a neologism to be notable it must have secondary sources that discuss the history of the term. All sources here are primary, not reliable, or simply usages of the term. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as Draft:2025 in hip hop music already exists. ✗plicit 11:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 in hip hop music

edit
2025 in hip hop music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Comparing this to the various List of years in hip hop music articles, most recently 2024 in hip hop music, and given the ubiquity of Hip hop culture around the world, this may well merit an article once the year 2025 actually starts. As it stands as of 1 Sep 2024, this would appear to fall under any or all deletion criteria WP:P&G-s, including but not limited to WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. That said, I do not oppose its speedy deletion, given the nature of its 1 Sep 2024 content. As always, happy to be proven wrong about this. Or anything else. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Agreed on a lot of the points above. Absolutely not ready to be published in its current state, but oftentimes it's about that time where enough is known/covered that it could be created if someone actually tried. (2025 in heavy metal music is in a barely passable state and I've been putting material together for the rock music equivalent.) Thus probably needs to be sent to a WP:DRAFT in the meantime though. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kazel Kinouchi

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

Refs are clickbait and profiles. Potentially notable but currently fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 09:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a clear pass? Where is the coverage that shows that and confirms WP:V and i'm not talking about clickbait or profiles. scope_creepTalk 14:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank: Do you have three reference per WP:THREE that shows the actor is notable? scope_creepTalk 14:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:3 is an essay. WP:NACTOR, however, is a guideline. She passes easily wih multiple significant roles in notable productions.
As for WP:V, you have for example https://www.pep.ph/news/local/175027/kazel-kinouchi-abot-kamay-na-pangarap-a745-20230806
https://www.cosmo.ph/entertainment/kazel-kinouchi-cosmo-up-close-july-2024-a2534-20240704-lfrm
https://www.theartistree.fm/entertainment/258250/kazel-kinouchi-before-and-after-a-journey-of-transformation/ https://www.spieltimes.com/news/who-is-kazel-kinouchi-actress-linked-to-richard-gutierrez-denies-romance-rumors/ and, most of all, coverage about the productions in which she has played significant roles (including main cast/lead roles).
The torrent of coverage (including in reliable media outlets) about her private life is also a strong indication of notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank: As an aside. WP:THREE is consensus policy since the summer when it was agreed during an RFA that is valid method to prove and Afd nomination notable. I wasn't sure about the subject. However, those are good refs. Perhaps you could update the article with them? scope_creepTalk 20:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC) Just did. Done-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regan Frame

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

Originally a PROD by User:Fram, which I fully supported. Sources have been added but none of them satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG as all are database sources or passing mentions. The subject is playing in the second tier of New Zealand and the best that I can find on him is Friends of Football. I fail to see how Frame is notable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also fail to Frame is notable. I wasn't able to find other sources mentioning him. Alexeyevitch(talk) 07:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. But clearly there is room for improvement with this article. Editors are encourage to spend some time on it. Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guda Endla

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

I couldn't find sources to verify this. Boleyn (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Leppien

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

Doesn't seem to be enough reliable coverage at this time, appears to be WP:TOOSOON StewdioMACK (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails basic notability guidelines. Alexeyevitch(talk) 08:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SPORTCRIT Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 08:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This player is notable as has played professional rugby union at national provincial level therefore I see no reason for deletion. FinzUp19 (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks to User:PamD for cleaning up after the cut and paste job. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martialis (disambiguation)

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

This was moved from Martialis (cognomen) for no good reason. The sole non-cognomen entry is a WP:partial title match. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and withdraw or speedy close: a discussion about what the page is called should not be at AfD. PamD
And I have now formatted it as a dab page which has a primary topic. PamD 07:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This DAB is clearly good as the previous page acts like a DAB Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a mess. I have just discovered that @2003 LN6: "moved" the previous Roman cognomen page to the dab page by doing a cut and paste move, thus losing the past history (which shows its creation in 2001 by @Clarityfiend:. With the existence of Martialis (ant), the genus, and a bishop I've found too, this should clearly be a dab page but it should not have been created like that. I have restored Martialis (cognomen) to its version before that incorrect edit, but I now suggest:
  1. Withdraw this AfD
  2. Make a formal WP:RM to move that page to the title Martialis (disambiguation), preserving its page history
  3. Reinstate the edits I've made which format it as a dab page with a primary topic. PamD 12:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or another way would be to add the {{copied}} template to both talk pages, explaining where the cognomen stuff had been copied from - but in any case offering acknowledgement of the history of the page. PamD 12:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which I've just done. PamD 12:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Cracking Up (1977 film)

edit

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ StewdioMACK (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Cracking Up (1977 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet GNG. Couldn't find any reliable secondary coverage of the film to make it notable. StewdioMACK (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Thai television soap operas. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buang Ruk Kamathep

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

Unreferenced cross-wiki spam. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Not sure what the "cross-wiki spam" claim is supposed to mean. It's a nationally televised TV series, and has the usual press coverage[20][21][22] and magazine covers[23][24], though as is often the case most information seems to be from press releases. It's 15 years old now so some sources may have gone offline. That said, The current article is such an uninformative substub that there's not much to lose if this is deleted without prejudice. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources presented by Paul 012 can be added to the page and I consider them enough to show this is notable. A redirect should be considered anyway.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. What target article are you considering if this article was turned into a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a redirect is the path chosen, it could be to List of Thai television soap operas.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to a redirect. Mccapra (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Olympic medalists in figure skating by age

edit
List of Olympic medalists in figure skating by age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All unsourced. Also, why do we even have this? Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The list would be very helpful to users who are interested in topics related to athletes age. WP:NLIST: “Lists that fulfill WP:LISTPURP, WP:LISTPURP-NAV often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.” Nihonjinatny (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Pinterest

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a well-articulated Keep argument and two valueless Delete comments that provide no explanations for why this article should be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne T. Smith

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for more participation. I do question the deletion rationale as the article creator is a current editor in good standing so while the article might have had some editing to it by paid editors, it wasn't created by a UPE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 00:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unger Steel Group

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

nonnotable business, tagged since 2015 meaning nobody cares --Altenmann >talk 22:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Lacks significant coverage in English from reliable sources, the notability is unsure. While the German page has a longer article cited more recent sources, I cannot tell the quality of them due to the language. If the German article of it is deleted at last, this one should be deleted. Nihonjinatny (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Home idle load

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possibly relevant discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Electrical_engineering/Archive_1#Is Home Idle Load a neologism? PianoDan (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need to hear from more editors in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The concept discussed in the article is distinct from standby power and plug load and doesn't have a clear merge target. The issues regarding paid contributions could be remedied in a rough manner by removing all mentions of specific brands, recommendations, etc., and it isn't so bad that the whole article should be deleted and redone (WP:TNT). The concept exists beyond its uses to promote brands. Reconrabbit 16:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to hear from more editors. While the page creator might have been a UPE, this article has been edited by many more editors since 2017. Other opinions on what should happen with this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This decision is based on the quality of the sourcing, not the nationality of the article subject. Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zean Leonardi

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

fails WP:SPORTCRIT the source provided is a database. The only source that pop up in google news is the this by Times of Malta Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there aren't any more references out there then it's safe to say that Leonardi isn't notable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Livio Mayr

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Found some sources [29] and [30] which are trivial. However [31] appears to be extensive, but I don't think its enough for WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement on whether or not the sources are sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the sources is database or passing mention which fails WP:SPORTCRIT per Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases.
and Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Strong arguments on both sides from highly experienced editors, but no rough consensus. It sounds like a merge discussion on Talk:Free Church of England for both this page and for Northern Diocese would be more productive. Or failing that, renomination in six months. Owen× ☎ 20:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Diocese

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

Lacking secondary sources. Completely fails WP:ORGCRIT. There is no way that individual dioceses of the fringe Free Church of England are individually notable. AusLondonder (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of that appears to be significant coverage of the Diocese. Any argument based on precedent is a OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, arguments of precedent aren't worth anything on wikipedia because we give absolutely no value to precedent whatsoever... We choose a different approach, consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each article needs to be judged on its own merits, not false claims to inherent notability. This is particularly the case for a minor, fringe organisation like the Free Church of England. To equate the FCE to the Catholic Church or the Anglican Communion is simply ridiculous. The Telegraph article is absolutely not significant coverage of the Southern Diocese specifically. AusLondonder (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I !voted above, I do think based on longstanding precedent "keep" is the community default for this sort of article, but I would accept "merge" as an alternative based on the size of the diocese (and considering that had it been up to me I would not have created free-standing pages for the FCE dioceses in the first place). Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per longstanding precedent that dioceses of established church organizations are typically treated as presumptively notable, provided that they actually have more than just a collection of people holding meetings in their living rooms. The diocese is admittedly rather small. But I think it passes our customary threshold. This has been the WP:COMMONSENSE approach to these articles for as long as I can remember. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Diocese" of a small splinter group consisting of eight churches. No significant coverage. No notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the movement is towards some version of keep or merge, the delete rationale has not, IMHO, actually been rebutted. The argument to retain seems to appeal to a de facto local consensus (or perhaps IAR?) than a specific showing that this subject is notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see some common sense here and acknowledgement that on the strength of the argument, which is what AfD is about, this should not be kept. AusLondonder (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Northern Diocese and Southern Diocese. The church is notable, but the individual dioceses aren't. Both lists of congregations are short, and if they were given in the parent article rather than being broken out it'd be easier to get an overview of where the church operates. I don't see any need for redirects, as someone searching for "Northern/Southern Diocese" is unlikely to be looking for this church. Adam Sampson (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Free Church of England. Per Adam Sampson, the church is notable, the individual dioceses not. There is simply no need to split out the information about the northern and southern dicocese from the parent article. Anyone interested in the Free Church of England will be better served by having all the information in that article, which is well below the threshold for considering a size split. I note Adam Sampson's concern that a redirect is not needed, and a merge will leave a redirect. I believe, however, there is a small amount of mergeable information, and keeping the edit history is then the right thing to do. Should another primary topic of Southern diocese emerge, the redirect could be overwritten with the new primary topic, but edit history would still be preserved. Thus I believe merge is the most sensible outcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lowell Galindo

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

Fails WP:NBASIC, I cannot find any article talking about him alone. The sources uses a datebase and a primary source Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note The time between when I created the article and when the article was marked for deletion was six hours and 12 minutes. Per WP:BEFORE, section C.2 states that, if an article was recently created, then time should be allowed to contributors to add to and expand the article. Considering that CFA easily found more articles that have coverage of the subject, I do not understand if @Miminity: has simply not read through the AfD guidelines prior to marking this article for deletion, or whether he did not do a thorough enough search through the internet before the deletion marking. Keep by default as I am article's creator. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The sources already presented in the article show that this subject meets the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn, Idk why, I didn't know those sources are RS. Oops
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Colorado apartment takeover

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

This feels like a violation of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill news story without secondary coverage Traumnovelle (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. after article improvements and the nominator's change of opinion on this article. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Wang

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

A WP:BEFORE did not reveal that the subject meets WP:SIGCOV. PROD was declined. TJMSmith (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to draft I support moving the article to draft where it can be incubated and sources that indicated notability are added. There is little coverage for series leed they lauched, Also the article can be rewritten from a more neutral point of viewTesleemah 09:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there anyone willing to take on rewriting a 14 year-old article in Draft space? Because otherwise, Draftification can just mean a CSD G13 in six months.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a quick crack at it in about an hour. But if I can't find anything solid then I'll come back and vote for deletion. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dr vulpes. It's nice to see you back in AFDLand. Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've updated with multiple sources, removed all the unsourced material and any content that I couldn't find proper sources for. This was a fun clean up. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please review the article since it has been improved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, Daviess County, Indiana

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

Baker, in passing, calls this a village, but all I can ever seem to find there is the grain business (now owned by Purdue) which sits next to the tracks as far back as I can see. An 1886 history of the county doesn't mention it, though it mentions various people named Graham. I think this is just a rail point. Mangoe (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Where are all of our editors who focus on geo AFDs?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Hard to find information, but this book: [36] talks all about the Graham family of Daviess County and never mentions a "community" named Graham, though I couldn't review every page. Pretty thin gruel for an article, especially since topo maps only show this as a couple of buildings by the railroad tracks, and today it's a grain elevator. Neither of these amounts to a populated place as required by WP:NPLACE. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BGR Capital & Trade

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

This appears to be a self-promotional article created by the subject, User:BGRCT. -- Beland (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just wanted to mention that while BGRCT did create this article 14 years ago, plenty of other editors have contributed to this article since 2009.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Definitely seems like advertising. As Maile66 said BGRCT made 5 edits to this article and never made another edit. Most edits after that were just references or bot edits. BGRCT sounds like an acronym of BGR Capital & Trade. Hlsci (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: completely insufficient reference citations to establish notability.
CapnPhantasm (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_September_1&oldid=1244751858"