Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 28	January 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Crew

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

Barely referenced article and the references appear to all be wikis, facebook pages, or the band's own website. No reliable secondary sources to illustrate they meet WP:BAND. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bulgaria. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Encyclopedia Mettalum used as sourcing is not a RS. I can't find mentions of this group online in RS (or in much of anything really. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found no evidence of notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark These Words as to why no AtD. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More references added. Xray321 (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't reliable sources. I had to remove some for being WP:USERGENERATED, WP:DISCOGS and WP:IMDB. The remaining appear to be random blogs that simply repeat press releases. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is independent coverage available online including news and reviews with significant coverage - see for example:

This is specialist music genre, and these are specialist online magazines. Some of these sources do appear fairly reliable - but input from editors with greater knowledge of the sources could be beneficial. ResonantDis_tortion 16:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the sources provided above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ResonantDistortion: When posting links, please omit any that are clearly promotional, particularly when they use the same press release.
- Prog Rock Journal, Ghost Cult Mag, Metal Heads Forever Magazine, RAMzine: Mostly PR copy[1]
- Velvet Thunder: Possibly neutral and independent, but the website has no editor credits, code of conduct information, only has a single email POC, and PR copy is posted under the "News" category without being labelled as such.
- Radio Tangra: Author appears to be Bulgarian musician Stefan "Stiff" Yordanov, who was in turn of the millennium bands Insmouth and Redrum. Expert, and possibly neutral/independent, but the site has only an advertising POC, and no editorial policy or code of conduct.
- Devolution Magazine: The reviewer (Jo Wright) appears to have performed 100 reviews for the magazine, also has a longer interview article with the band. Website has editor listed, but not an editorial policy or code of conduct. "Work With Us" section states "We are always on the look out for brands looking to advertise, contributors, stockists and affiliates/partners to work with on exciting opportunities" - unclear as to what disclosure is provided.
- rockfreaks.net: Looks reliable[2]. AZ is former reviewer Bulgarian Alexander Zafirov - large number of reviews[3]
- metal.de: Looks reliable. Reviewer is a regular.[4][5]
There's at least a marginal level of coverage in English Language sources, this is a band that has survived for 20 years under two names, and it is all but certain that there'd be more coverage in Bulgaria and probably elsewhere given their touring[6] (the rollingstone.bg article hasn't been archived, and it's tricky to tell what sources in the bg-wiki article are reliable). But the current article quality is terrible, and appears to have had significant connected contributions . I'm somewhere between a Weak Keep if someone cleans it up properly, and a Draftify/WP:TNT delete if not (yes, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP given consideration). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 01:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Ligorio

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

Local painter with minimal coverage in reliable sources. Non-notable. Broc (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Croatia. Broc (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's at least been several Slobodna Dalmacija articles on him. Could pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some links? --Broc (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As well as a 2006 documentary about him. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. He not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. https://arhiv.slobodnadalmacija.hr/?showSubscriptionModal=1 is behind a paywall. https://www.matica.hr/vijenac/366/Prodajte svoje tijelo/ is a passing mention. Croatian Wiki article isn't cited well. Nor is Serbo-Croatian wiki. No reliable source for exact dob. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Starbucks unions#Strikes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Starbucks strike

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

As per WP:EVENT, there was a spike in coverage in June 2023 when it occured. There was also an unrelated strike by staff on a different issue in November 2023, so the title "2023 Starbucks strike" could also relate to this. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Starbucks_unions#Strikes. While it was in the news, it wasn't sustained coverage as the strike was mostly symbolic in nature. Star Mississippi 01:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename 2023 Starbucks strikes to include both major strikes. They both received significant coverage but are better handled together than separately.--User:Namiba 03:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the page creator, I have no objection to renaming the page and expanding the scope. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sexuality and gender. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Starbucks_unions#Strikes per Star Mississippi, not extensive enough to need standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 16:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Starbucks_unions#Strikes, Definitely a case of no enduring coverage, at least in the current timeframe; may be notable in the wider context of Starbucks labor relations, but isn't on its own. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per above. So, there sources on the matter, but in comparison to the larger scale of union strikes across Starbucks, I feel the smaller ones in 2023 don't amount to much SIGCOV. However, the section in Starbucks unions works well. Conyo14 (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Rename per the above reasons. Both seem like reasonable options in my opinion. -User:LoomCreek 01:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Starbucks_unions#Strikes. A four-sentence article about a weeklong strike is not needed. Persingo (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per above. The article itself isn't too long and would be a good fit in the Starbucks_unions#Strikes section of the Union's article. i2n 2z 08:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kid Icarus (series)#Characters. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pit (Kid Icarus)

AfDs for this article:

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

While I'm aware the previous AfD was voted keep, I'm nominating this again, arguing that the discussion was overlooking two issues:

The current sourcing in the article is not a case of "needing more to flesh it out", but outside of one singular IGN source near useless. Many are lists that barely discuss the character, and per previous discussions on Captain Falcon or Meta Knight or other Smash Bros. characters, these don't provide enough coverage to warrant an article.
So that leaves the two sources brought forth in the last AfD: "Aplicaciones didácticas de los videojuegos en el ámbito del mundo clásico", a published paper that offers some discussion on the character, though only a small amount, and "Women in Classical Video Games", which...doesn't actually discuss Pit, and is more about the series.

So in light of this, we have a situation where the character's whole coverage is built around one source that examines his character, and a paper that mentions him briefly while echoing the same observations as the IGN source.

It's just not enough to hold up Pit as an article, sadly. Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. The coverage in the article is substantially lacking, and there isn't enough to support its existence. This AfD and the prior one have already clarified very little else exists in terms of coverage, and thus the chances of anything else coming up are unlikely. Some of this might be worthwhile to discuss in Kid Icarus's Legacy section, but there's just not enough here for a whole article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kid Icarus. Virtually nothing in the article constitutes significant coverage, and it relies excessively on articles of a type that have been routinely rejected as typically trivial (Smash rankings, Smash wishlists, etc.). From the previous AfD, it also feels like people were just arguing that sources merely mentioning Pit passed GNG. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Per my last AfD !vote. My view on the article hasn't changed at all since then. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Mostly were just passing mentions. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If it is going to be redirected again, can we redirect it to Kid Icarus (series) instead? (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom to Kid Icarus (series)#Characters. I didn't get the chance to vote on the last AFD, but it is clear that the sources mention the Smash series moreso than even the Kid Icarus series. Also, the sources pinged in the last AFD showed no signs of improvement to the article and mere mentions than in-depth analysis. Conyo14 (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have a lot of the people who agreed with you back in July when this was nominated, seems unfair others aren't told the discussion started up again. @Haleth: @(Oinkers42): @KingSkyLord: @MoonJet: @Shooterwalker: @SnowFire: @Bduke: That's everyone who hasn't participated yet. Dream Focus 05:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus While I'm certain in my arguments, I'm going to say I feel doing this the way you are comes pretty close to canvassing, if not canvassing outright.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith! I just found it an odd coincidence that the four who wanted to get rid of the article last time, happen to show up and try again. Seemed wrong to not include everyone who participated months ago, since you are just redoing the same exact argument. I do believe its gaming the system to keep sending things to AFD just because you didn't get the results you wanted the first time. Dream Focus 05:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also recommend you WP:AGF, since you are assuming that they are doing this in an attempt to game the system. (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can not assume good faith with this editor, who decided to ignore the previous AFD ending in Keep and eliminate the article himself and make it a redirect. [7] After being reverted, he then did it again. Then he brings it to AFD for a second time. Not getting the results you want, so ignoring consensus and keep trying until you succeed, is gaming the system. Dream Focus 00:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus has been warned to cease their blatant canvassing. Sergecross73 msg me 12:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While the message could have been a tad more neutral, this isn't a canvassing violation. Notifying everyone at a previous AFD is good form, and helps avoid a WP:DRV under the argument that an AFD simply wasn't noticed by the relevant editors. Per WP:VOTESTACK, "Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances." This appears to have indeed been a valid notification of everyone at the previous AFD. SnowFire (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's...difficult to believe that was his intention with his whole preamble there... Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While I feel as though notifying users in a prior AfD is a good process, the reasonings behind doing so definitely don't feel like a good faith action. There was an immediate assumption we were working together solely because we voted "Merge" last time. The names who voted before the mass ping are all fairly frequent in this deletion sorting, so their votes aren't exactly a rarity, and it's also not unreasonable to assume that people will hold the same opinions as before, especially given that the article has not changed substantially since the prior AfD. There's nothing here pointing to any potential form of "rigging the vote" and it instead comes off as justification to call in other users for support instead of as a good faith notification of a new discussion. It's too late to really do anything about it, but this doesn't exactly come off as good faith practice. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that there's a pretty bad faith argument put forth, implying that the people who participated in the discussion were canvassed into doing so. Of the five people participating, all are regular participants at AfD and merge discussions as they appear on the project banner, and both the nominator and I edited the article extensively, so I would have had extra reason to be aware. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage is quality not quantity, no absolute limit set in the notability guidelines. So https://www.ign.com/articles/2011/01/27/you-dont-know-kid-icarus would be enough. But there is more, at https://www.thegamer.com/how-to-build-pit-kid-icarus-dungeons-dragons-dnd/ and many smaller mentions of him about as well in many other places. thegamer gets 1,077 results for Wikipedia articles its referenced in, so I assume its a reliable source. Dream Focus 05:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to note that I did find these two articles in my BEFORE search. I just felt they lacked the substance to land Pit his own article. Conyo14 (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Gamer is typically only used with articles that show significant coverage, and even in that case, whether they establish notability is contentious; on WP:VG/RS, it's noted that it shouldn't be used to establish notability. I don't necessarily agree with that, as I think some coverage from The Gamer is very strong. However, the D&D article is a dime a dozen, literally, as The Gamer has done roughly a dozen other articles about roleplaying fictional characters in D&D. Even if we took this as significant that Pit was chosen, what would we even use this source to say in the article? It just describes his personality, his role in the series, his skillset, and how he would fit into D&D. You speak of quality, but I would consider this extremely low quality as far as significant coverage. As far as the first goes, it is closer to significant coverage, but at the same time, what does it really say? It'd be great to use for, like, citations for information about Pit, but yeah, it's just a profile. There's nothing really we can take from it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd say TheGamer counts towards things, but this is totally unrelated to Pit's appearance in his own games. I can't possibly see how Pit as a D&D character would be relevant to his character development in Kid Icarus. The IGN source has already been mentioned in the nom. I couldn't even find any magazine sources that weren't simply about the game itself. This is stretching it a lot. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the character, not just his appearance in his official games. The character is notable because he's popular enough to get coverage. Dream Focus 00:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IGN article specifically says that it's talking about him because of the announcement of Kid Icarus: Uprising. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does that make if that's the reason they said its "finally be time to try to get to know him a little bit better."? They gave him quite significant coverage as a character. Dream Focus 03:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason why "five characters Pit could beat (and five that he can't" or "10 things you didn't know about Pit" are not usable. Describing details about him is in no way, shape, or form significant coverage, and it doesn't show notability, as demonstrated in uncountable merge and AfD discussions. Further, my point is that the article exists for people to better understand the context of an upcoming game, not because Pit is an icon. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per all. I made a neutral comment last time, because this was the protagonist from a historic game, and I believed there might be sources out there. But enough time has passed and I can't seem to find enough WP:SIGCOV. The character is more or less synonymous with the series, and the sources reflect that. Merge helps WP:PRESERVE the content and build a consensus.

Shooterwalker (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or Redirect I agree that the sources used are press releases, listicles, or articles about the game not the character. The article from "TheGamer" is basically a joke that doesn't seem usable in any way. ApLundell (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content and redirect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think with the sources uncovered in the previous AFD, a keep is warranted. Quite the unpopular opinion in this particular AFD though. I wasn't even going to !vote here, because I knew my input wouldn't sway anything, but I went ahead with it. MoonJet (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing has changed since last AfD, which found sourcing sufficient. I agree. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per nom; the sourcing here is just not sufficient to support a separate article. The Kid Icarus (series) article could probably support a paragraph or two under #Characters about Pit, since he is central to the series. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tantric (band). (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sum of All Things

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

Subject fails NALBUMS and GNG. You can find retailers and press releases but nothing substantial. Efforts to redirect this have failed. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tantric (band): Found those same announcements/press releases that Troutman mentioned; they are not particularly substantial. Found nothing else signifying notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ellis Township, Ellis County, Kansas. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mendota, Kansas

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

Another 4th class post office in a house that we are pretending is a "community". It must have been very crowded in there. Mangoe (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: listed in Blackmar (p. 268) with the following description: "a country hamlet in Ellis county, is located in Hamilton township, about 20 miles northwest of Hays, the county seat, and 10 miles from Ellis, its shipping point and the postoffice from which it receives mail by rural route." Labelled on this old map^[1] as "Mendota P.O." Jbt89 (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And listed as a hamlet in Ellis County, Kansas#Communities, because I went through all of the ones that Blackmar had, as well as all of the post offices listed in the State Board of Agriculture reports. Uncle G (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.mapsofthepast.com/ellis-county-ks-kansas-everts-1887.html

Comment: Found this 1971 article in the Hays newspaper about Mendota.[8] --Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ellis Township, Ellis County, Kansas. It's pretty clear that this was just a "post village," with a post office and perhaps a general store to serve the surrounding rural area, not true town. Similar case to Elk, Kansas (also mentioned in Blackmar), which we merged into the article on the surrounding township. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbt89 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge according to consensus or delete I checked the ellis county papers. I couldn't find anything that disputes what has already been said. But, in april of the year the post office changed names from Halton to Mendota, the person sending in the news to the paper from Halton, wrote that the name of the post office had changed. And just like that everyone started calling it Mendota. I think if it had a community identity, that would not have happened.James.folsom (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Puddle Lane books

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

De-PRODded by IP, who gave no rationale. PROD reason below:

WP:NOTDATABASE. Topic is discussed (briefly, but still in more depth than on this list) at Puddle Lane. No redirect required (unusual search term, no incoming links aside from Puddle Lane and Lists of books). asilvering (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Lists, and United Kingdom. asilvering (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Ashworth, Linda (April 1986). "Reviews: Puddle Lane". Child Education. Vol. 63, no. 4. ISSN 0009-3947. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes: "The free guide for parents is very good. The information is given clearly in layman's terms and the advice is sound. It emphasises the importance of story, shared enjoyment and choice. There is also good advice in every book in case parents haven't read the guide ... But what about the books themselves? The stories seem tame and don't stand up to reading aloud. They have been written to teach the children to read, not by an author simply wanting to tell a story. Aesthetically the books don't come up to the standard of picture story books by authors such as Anthony Browne, Pat Hutchins or Maurice Sendak. The Ladybird format kills any possibility of individuality or originality of presentation. Although the subject matter of the books-magic, fantasy, toys coming to life — usually captures children's imagination, these stories are just not up to the standard of Tim and the Hidden People. The language structures are not so artificial as to hinder children's anticipatory skills but some of the text is very stilted."
  The article notes: "However, the main market for Puddle Lane is parents with pre-school children. Where parents have bought the books, their children will come into school with Puddle Lane forming a significant part of their literary experience. And there can be no doubt that parents will buy it. A television series is always a high motivator to buy the books, both for children and adults. Books can be bought in a pack with an accompanying tape — always a welcome aid to busy parents and teachers alike. The books are cheap (75p each), durable (hardback) and readily available."
2. "Fantasy world of Puddle Lane, but rewards are real". Leicester Mercury. 1985-09-30. Archived from the original on 2024-02-04. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The Puddle Lane stories are grouped in four stages (a fifth is on the way) and the books are colour coded at each stage. The programme is geared to children from three-and-a-half to six-and-a-half, and the early books are laid out so that the story is printed on the left hand page for the adult to read to the child. Illustrations, by a team of five artists brought in for the series are an integral part of the programme. ... The stories are set in the fantasy world of Puddle Lane in Candletown with a magician a family of cats who live in his garden, a strange but Friendly monster, the Griffle, who can vanish leaving only his ears and eyes or his tail showing, and four children — Sarah, Davy, Hari and Gita, who also have adventures in Puddle Lane."
3. Dakin, Bridget (1985-09-13). "Open a page to walk down Puddle Lane". Loughborough Echo. Archived from the original on 2024-02-04. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "This week they launched the Puddle Lane series — a colourful and imaginative newcomer to the shelves designed to make learning fun. ... So tales from Puddle Lane are simple to follow with colourful illustrations to help youngsters create the imaginary world in their own minds. The programme is designed for children aged between three-and-half and six-and-a-half. It has five stages, each with several books of the same reading level. The story is printed on the left-hand page of each book for the adult to first read to the child. Below illustrations on the right-hand pages are words or simple sentences which the child is encouraged to read itself when the adult goes through the story a second time."
4. Hammerton, Geoff (1985-09-23). "Magic approach has them reading early". Derby Evening Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-02-04. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Puddle Lane, as its catchphrase says, is where children learn to read. Twelve titles, some at each of the four levels of the scheme, are out immediately at the standard price of 75p. Already there has been a tie up with Pickwick International, the record company, which has added Puddle Lane to its Tell-a-Tale bookcassette."
5. "New books aim to stem teaching cutbacks". Loughborough Echo. 1985-08-30. Archived from the original on 2024-02-04. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The Puddle Lane stories have a mystical setting guaranteed to capture infants' imagination and interest. They have also caught the eye of Yorkshire Television whose new children's series based on the books is due to be screened from October. Animals, a magician and even a strange, vanishing monster feature. And in case anyone tries to accuse Ladybird of being racist, the Puddle Lane children are Sarah and Davy and their ethnic friends, Hari and Gita. ... The first 12 books from Puddle Lane are launched on September 12. It will be two years before the whole series of 54 books is on the shelves."
6. "Trip down Puddle Lane". The Bookseller. No. 5218. 2006-02-24. p. 9. EBSCOhost 20214617.
  The article notes: "Publisher Mercury Junior is to bring early readers series Puddle Lane back into print. The publisher has signed a deal with author Sheila McCullagh, whose library of over 300 titles includes the Puddle Lane series, televised during the early 1980s with a series of tie-in titles published by Ladybird. Mercury Junior will target parents who grew up watching the series. The deal was agented by Annie Quigly."
7. Root, Betty (1986-03-21). "Alive and well and living in schools. Reports of the death of reading schemes are extremely premature, says Betty Root, who looks at some new examples". The Times Educational Supplement. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes: "Puddle Lane. This new reading programme written especially for parents to use in the home, has already been reviewed on these pages. Though this review was unfavourable, evidence from a very wide spectrum of parents and children confirm the overwhelming popularity of Puddle Lane. Tim and Tobías have been voted by hundreds of teachers as some of the most popular stories to bo found in any classroom. The same imaginative flair is contained in the new Ladybird series and Puddle Lane is a world children will enjoy reading about."
8. Root, Betty (1986). In Defence of Reading Schemes. Reading: Reading and Language Information Centre. University of Reading. p. 8. ISBN 0-7049-0366-0. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Puddle Lane. Ladybird 1985. This extensive new reading programme is aimed specifically at the parent market and certainly breaks new ground in many ways. All 55 books have been written by Sheila McCullagh, an established and highly respected children's writer. The books have a variety of support materials, all reasonably priced. Teachers, parents and children will delight in these stories which create, so successfully, an imaginary world yet contain characters both animals and human to whom the young readers can relate. With the provision of context support in the early stages — adults read the long story and children the shorter version — the books will tolerate reading over and over again. Thus building the confidence of children first learning to read. In everyway Puddle Lane has changed the image of Ladybird readers."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Puddle Lane book series to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sources. Also, WP:NOTADATABASE says nothing about bibliographies. Toughpigs (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom): Cunard's sources do not address the purpose of this AfD. They are sources for a hypothetical afd against Puddle Lane, which is not up for deletion. The article for discussion here is List of Puddle Lane books. -- asilvering (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, should you be proposing a merge rather than a deletion? There's Reception information on the List of Puddle Lane books that could go on Puddle Lane. AfD is not cleanup. Toughpigs (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puddle Lane is about a television programme. List of Puddle Lane books is about the book series. The sources I provided are about the book series, not the television programme. Cunard (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephannie Vásquez

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a Peruvian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this 2020 interview with El Comercio. Everything else that came up were passing mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Peru. JTtheOG (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even Pizango

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a Peruvian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found were transactional announcements (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Peru. JTtheOG (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hockey Night in Canada commentators. There is no consensus for a merge, but should one emerge the history is there to enact it. Star Mississippi 03:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hockey Night in Canada commentating crews (1990s)

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. These lists are full of trivial WP:LISTCRUFT and are all sourced by YouTube videos or Twitter. I am also nominating these articles for the same reason:

Conyo14 (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Update The three articles above have been redirected to List of Hockey Night in Canada commentators with the exception of List of Hockey Night in Canada commentating crews (1990s). Conyo14 (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of Hockey Night in Canada commentators. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merged please. Khoa41860 (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Hockey Night in Canada commentators Khoa41860 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one should be merged Khoa41860 (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for failure to meet WP:LISTN for a standalone list. Flibirigit (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to List of Hockey Night in Canada commentators, which seems to be the parent list. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kept per consensus. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Tudhope

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

Subject fails ANYBIO because a single nomination for an Oscar is not enough. Subject has to have won or have had multiple nominations. A BEFORE search showed ROUTINE coverage in Hollywood media like Variety and THR but it was either an interview (not independent) or it only mentioned subject in passing. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to Variety, Tudhope was also nominated for an Emmy in 2014. That may satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Toughpigs (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 2 nominations (ONE, TWO) for 2 significant awards. The veracity of the nominations, the importance of the awards and the fact that 2>1 being unquestionable~~, he does appear to meet ANYBIO indeed.~~-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ANYBIO:"has been nominated for such an award several times" (emphasis mine). "Several" is more than two; some people would say that several intones more than a couple (2-3) and more than a few (4-5). Chris Troutman (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks, yes. That's true, I had "multiple" in mind (and even then). Removing my !vote. Although I think that could be almost enough, the guideline states it otherwise. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-->and back to Keep but for slightly different reasons: I found MoviesandTelevisionFan's explanation convincing (Thanks) and I therefore think an article about him is not undue and can be well-sourced with what exists.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets 4C of WP:CREATIVE "won significant critical attention" as an Oscar nominee. There is also significant sources on him source 1, source 2, source 3. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To be honest, the article is so sparse, it invites a redirect. But since he's been verified as winning an award for two different films, there's no obvious target to redirect to. Hence, the default is to keep as a separate entry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TB11Cs3H2 snoRNA

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

Fails WP:GNG, passing coverage in one source. Mass-created by one user in 2009. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing beyond the one cited primary source. Owen× ☎ 17:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Niche topic sourced entirely to one primary source; little else found. No secondary significant coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Thao Nguyen. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Linen

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

not notable under WP:NALBUM; fails WP:GNG. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thao Nguyen: Found no significant coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thao Nguyen: little hope of finding SIGCOV to establish notability for a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 17:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ahmed-Chamanga

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

BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 15:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comoros-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against a merge discussion at some later point. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anointed One (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article has been unreferenced since its creation in 2004. Article was redirected to a character list in 2022 but the action was reverted. A "sources exist" tag was added but I haven't found those sources. There's Screenrant articles: [9], [10] but Valnet sites aren't considered reliable sources. Mika1h (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Mika1h (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mika1h (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there's a lot of brief coverage indexed by Google Scholar in contexts where this subject is analyzed alongside the symbolism of other elements of Buffy. The Girl's Got Bite: The Original Unauthorized Guide to Buffy's World appears to have the most coverage, but there's other examples as well (e.g. [11]). The preview for Celluloid Vampires on Google Scholar also looks promising, although I'm unable to access it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's worth pinging @Rosguill, who added the sources exist tag, and @Randy Kryn, who reverted the merge, to potentially see what their thoughts are. If either happens to have the sources on them, then that would be a big help to improving the article and avoiding its deletion.

In the article's current state, I'd definitely argued for a redirect. Valnet sources aren't unreliable, but they aren't exactly what you build an article on, and the nominator's BEFORE doesn't seem to have born much fruit. If any significant sources are discovered verifying notability, ping me and I'll reconsider my vote. As it stands now, it's small and entirely unsourced, and thus there's nothing to merge nor is there nothing really worth keeping here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Rosguill replied while I was typing. Sorry about the extra ping, mate. I'm unable to access Celluloid Vampires, so I can't speak on that one, but the first source has some bits, though Source 3 looks a bit weak, albeit usable. It might be enough, but I can't speak for certain yet given I can't access everything these have to say. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to merge. The sources provided appear relatively small, and given the character's minor role, do not seem to illustrate that there is enough coverage to warrant a separate article when the character list can easily cover the analysis the characters does have. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep As has been said, "but Valnet sites aren't considered reliable sources" is not consenus throughout. Screen Rant specifically "is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons." As this is an entertainment-related topic and not about a living person, Screen Rant is considered reliable. There is also brief commentary on the biblical nature of the name in The Afterlife of Genre: Remnants of the Trauerspiel in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, p. 18 and Slayer Slang: A Buffy the Vampire Slayer Lexicon, p. 15-16. So the suggested sources collectively are enough to establish notability for my part. While it is unfortunate that those secondary sources have not yet been added, this is not grounds for deletion. Daranios (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Screen Rant is a low-quality source whose uses on Wikipedia are limited. It is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis. It is likewise not a source to be used for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight. TompaDompa (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, could you point to the WP:RSP entry and show me where it says that Screen Rant is not usable for analysis or notability? I certainly don't see it there, and I am sure we would both hate for people to confuse opinion with consensus. Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course I can't point you to where it says that on the WP:RSP entry; that's not what WP:RSP is for. But I can point you to discussions on what Screen Rant is suitable for, including WT:FAC#Would these pass a source review? and Talk:Priscilla (film)#Vandalism. TompaDompa (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - So, two discussions for specific occasions, without any wider input, admin finding of general applicability, or posting to any place with multiple eyes and routine referencing for the output of such decisions? That's fine... but it doesn't trump what RSP says. And to the second point, yes, that's precisely how RSP is used when such a determination has been made, e.g. WP:THESUN which notes References from The Sun are actively discouraged [...] and they should not be used for determining the notability of any subject. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll admit that I'm somewhat surprised at the number of sources listed at WP:RSP where there are explicit mentions of whether they can be used for establishing notability, but what I said it that it's not what it's for—what it's for is listing whether they are reliable, which is a different question. It's also worth noting that WP:RSP links to WP:VGRS#Valnet, which says In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability outside of periods they were considered reliable or prior to being purchased by Valnet, due to concerns over undue weight and content farming. (Screen Rant was purchased by Valnet in 2015, according to our article). Using Screen Rant for establishing notability is at best questionable, seeing as it was seen as "marginally reliable" and its use for establishing notability was not discussed in the 2021 RfC that designated it as such (though it was at the most recent of the dicussions listed at WP:VGRS). It's not like its standing has improved. TompaDompa (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        So, we're back to a specific case (Screen Rant) being at odds with the general case (Valnet sites). In other such discussions, the specific guidance is usually seen as normative. I think we understand each other and I have nothing further substantive to say on this. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure I understand your position. I've gone in the record as saying Screen Rant is a low-quality source whose uses on Wikipedia are limited. It is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis. It is likewise not a source to be used for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight. I stand by that. Do you want to go on the record as disagreeing with that assessment, or did you just want to talk about the bureaucratic aspect? TompaDompa (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an AfD outcome, per the above sourcing. Buffy and all related topics have been so over-studied by academics even the most lame related topics seem to have GScholar hits. Having said that, a merge discussion might identify this as a NOPAGE situation. That is, this character is basically a MacGuffin with no particular development compared to the series' other antagonists, and had no recurring appearances, e.g. First Evil never manifested as him. Covering him in a character list or Buffy the Vampire Slayer (season 1) wouldn't be a terrible outcome, but sourcing this is at least as plausible, and deletion is right out. Jclemens (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was going to initially vote "Merge" when I looked at the article, but upon seeing the sources supplied by Rosguill, the sources show that the subject does meet notability standards and thus qualifies for an independent article. I think then afterwards, when the page is improved, there should be a discussion about whether to merge it, but I do not think it should be deleted, even though the article needs work and sources.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bantay Radyo. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYDD

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

No significant coverage in RS. Can be redirected to Bantay Radyo. MarioGom (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All the sources in the article are reliable. The first two source states that the station is licensed. The rest of the sources (including source 4) talk about the station's programming and updates. That said, though the station is off the air since 2015, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG 😎🙃 13:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The initial sources are mere primary source records. They do not prove notability. Source 4 is not about DYDD, but about Bantay Radyo (my proposed redirect target). There is only a passing mention about DYDD, so it does not provide significant coverage. Everything else I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYHH applies here. Unless further reliable sources with significant coverage are brought here, I do not see how this article could pass WP:GNG. MarioGom (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astig, What sources exactly do you see with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth? Just to be clear what you think is SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 17:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG per Astig's argument. Sources mentioned are reliable enough and secondary, with the ones mentioned by Astig in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources exactly do you see with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth? // Timothy :: talk 17:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 3 to 7 are realiable and in-depth enough IMV since they're about the station's programming. SBKSPP (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article provides sufficient evidence of notability based on reliable sources, including records confirming the station's licensing and in-depth discussions about its programming and updates. Despite the station being off the air since 2015, the coverage meets the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. While there are differing opinions on the reliability of the sources, the majority of them are secondary and contribute to a comprehensive understanding of DYDD. Therefore, the article should be retained, pending any additional reliable sources that may further support its notability."KarKuZoNga (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC) (Struck !vote by blocked account gaming AFD. MarioGom (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to Bantay Radyo Delete per nom. Most of the sources I can find are passing mentions. Israel's Son 15:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the cited sources are passing mentions. There's no "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" as set out by WP:ORGCRITE. I would happily change my mind if someone finds in-depth Philipino or local coverage, though. Tserton (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Update: redirecting to Bantay Radyo, as others have suggested, would be acceptable as well. --Tserton (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Lilst of stations, fails WP:IS WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly an d indepth from independent sources	1. "2021 NTC AM Stations" (PDF). foi.gov.ph. Retrieved November 18, 2023.
Row listing in database results page	NTC Region 7
No mention of subject beyond that it was merged with another station. Fails WP:SIGCOV	3. ^ Vice guv to be back soon, daughters say
Name mention in listing, nothing SIGCOV	4. ^ Bantay Radyo moves to new home
Name mention nothing SIGCOV	5. ^ Radio news stringer shot dead in Masbate
Routine mill news, about Bantay Radyo not the subject	6. ^ dyDD workers ask for separation pay
Routine mill news, about Bantay Radyo not the subject	7. ^ CFI to take over Bantay Radyo

Sources are barely passing mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Keep votes above are nonsense. // Timothy :: talk 17:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, with no significant coverage found. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 08:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bantay Radyo per WP:ATD-R. Those calling for deletion haven't explained why this is an invalid redirect target; an analysis for sources towards notability is irrelevant for redirects, which just need verifiable information in the target article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:SIGCOV. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to single you out specifically, but did you read my above comment? (And also WP:VAGUEWAVE) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further discussion of WP:ATD vs deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested seems like the best option. I'm not seeing sigcov about the station. Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bantay Radyo per Ritchie333 and Oaktree b. -Ian Lopez @ 17:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yemisi Ransome-Kuti

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

Does not meet with Wikipedia notability guidelines for biographies Semmy1960 (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify for improvement. I see press coverage stretching back years in a Google news search and a Google book search, enough to suggest a strong GNG pass. Our current article is not well written but deletion is not cleanup and the subject seems notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific source assessment would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: BEFORE suggests that this passes GNG, also, indeed, AfD isn't for articles that just need cleanup. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 01:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jahanshah Javid

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

Non-notable journalist. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, and Iran. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both of the article's references were written by the subject, and the subject has a history of editing the article. There are some other sources in existence (such as https://www.jstor.org/stable/20343473) but I do not believe they will add anything to the article. Redtree21 (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing discussing this individual that isn't a primary source. This is a brief mention [12], but nothing else for GNG found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As others have said, the article presently relies entirely on primary sources directly or indirectly created by the subject. A search on Google News reveals two more sources which refer to the subject. One ([13]https://iranhumanrights.org/who_we_are/]) identifies the subject as a senior researcher for the Center for Human Rights in Iran and the other ([14]) briefly appears to mention the subject only by name as a signatory to a letter calling for opposition to Iran's nuclear policy. There might be a marginal case for notability if the subject's work as part of the Center could be identified but otherwise it does not seem as if there are adequate sources to meet the WP:N standard. Pseudoname1 (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep several reliable sources have made him subject of their coverage. Sources are in Persian but reliable including BBC and Radio Farda: [15] [16] [17] --Drako (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sicaspi: the first two of those links are the same URL. All three are interviews with Javid, which don't count towards establishing notability. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the error, here are more correct links: [18] [19] [20] iewse[21]. In all these sources and interviews, interviewer is independent of this person, is a professional journalist and these sources are highly prestigous and reliable media with editorial oversight. In all of them he himself is the subject, he is not being interviewed about some third-party subject. As per WP:INTERVIEWS, interviews can also be counted towards notability, it says interviews that "show a depth of preparation, such as those that include a biography. An interview presented as investigative journalism of the sort we associate with 60 Minutes can be helpful." The sources here are like that. Also, according to Radiofarda he has founded Iranian.com which is one of the oldest and (at the time) most popular Iranian websites [22]. That is also an example of the second item in WP:ANYBIO as he has had a significant contribution to Iranian and Persian internet history by founding one of the earliest Iranian websites. More evidence on that from the BBC [23]. Drako (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: neither the sources cited in the article nor those found by Pseudoname1 and by Sicaspi offer the SIGCOV we need to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 19:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources I presented not only cover this person "directly and in detail", he is the main subject of their coverage and they exclusively cover him, which is above the standard in WP:SIGCOV . I do not know what you mean by insignificance of their coverage of this person. Drako (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this friendly interview can be seen as "covering this person directly and in detail". The entire interview is about the website, not the journalist. No hard-hitting questions or criticism by the interviewer; all slow-ball pitches straight to his bat. Yes, interviews can provide SIGCOV. This one does not. Owen× ☎ 20:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PBS is a reliable media platform, and is independent of this person. The required standard is for the interview to be deep and investigative which is what this interviews is, he is being asked specific questions about his work. Being friendly or hostile is not a requirement.

As per WP:ANYBIO :"a person who has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" is notable. His widely recognized contribution is starting one of the most popular websites in a country, hence contributing to the Internet history there. If you agree that website is widely covered and recognized as such, that makes him notable.

Also, How about the multitude of other sources? BBC and Radio Farda are highly reputable sources (and independent from this man) that have covered his person in depth as mentioned in the above links. Even in their interviews, in these sources material you see is "interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts as mentioned in wp:interview#notability. Drako (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really consider the PBS interview to be "deep and investigative"? What exactly is the interviewer "investigating" there? You seem to be the only one here who considers it anything but a puff piece. Owen× ☎ 19:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to judge interviews to be awarded Pulitzer prize. Sources should just meet a bare minimum. Also I do not get why you are stuck on this particular source. Almost ten other more thorough sources have been presented in this AfD, for example:
Radio Farda [24] goes in depth exploring the guy and his contribution, his website

BBC has dedicated an entire episode of the programme Chamedan to him [25], depicting details of his life.

First persian podcast [26], another BBC production, has made an entire exclusive programme on him and covered him [27]

Mahdi Falahati has hosted him on his Hard Talk style show on Voice of America and has done a thorough, deep and investigative interview with him [28]

Drako (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, we will not be playing this game. You said, All the sources I presented not only cover this person 'directly and in detail', he is the main subject of their coverage and they exclusively cover him. And by All you were referring to all six of the sources you presented above. The PBS interview was one of those sources you presented, therefore sufficient as a counterexample to disprove your "All" claim. Your options at this point are either (1) show us how the PBS interview meets your description of "directly and in detail"; or (2) retract your original claim. If not all your sources provide the required significant coverage, please amend your original claim to state which of those sources are the ones you believe provide SIGCOV. WP:REFBOMBing and playing Whac-A-Mole by shifting your claim to a different source whenever one is challenged will not work here. Owen× ☎ 18:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jamaica–United States relations. Star Mississippi 01:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Kingston

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

The article says nothing about the Embassy of the United States in Kingston, and whatever it says about Jamaica–United States relations can be added there. Biruitorul ^Talk 07:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Jamaica, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another unnecessary bilateral relations content fork created in a spree of non notable embassy articles. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, can be a standalone article given that it meets WP:GNG and that there is coverage specifically about the embassy (as opposed to the bilateral relationship): JO, Radio Jamaica News, JO 2, Jamaica Gleaner, Caribbean Journal, The Washington Post. The article can be further completed with descriptions of the architecture from the architect's website KCCT. Pilaz (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting aside the architect’s self-praise, there really isn’t coverage about the embassy building: we have a couple of routine articles about its guards going on strike, one about some colored lights being flashed onto its exterior, another about it closing for a Federal holiday (like every single non-essential Federal building in existence) and one about a guard who admitted taking bribes. None of this in any way amounts to significant coverage of the purported topic. — Biruitorul ^Talk 21:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Pilaz – Kjerish (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  see WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jamaica–United States relations: the thorough source analysis carried out by the nom has not been refuted--or even addressed--by the "Keep" voters or the PERXs. Fleeting mentions do not add up to SIGCOV. Owen× ☎ 18:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Kumar Verma

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

The person is not notable enough for a standalone article. The position of High Commissioner of India to Canada does not confer any notability, and his previous positions as ambassador to multiple countries didn't confer automatic notability as well.

Outside of routine coverage of him doing his duties, there is no special notability about the subject. His involvement in Hardeep Singh Nijjar case is routine. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet passes WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 09:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom -- QuadriSyedSahab(T · C 08:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine coverage, does not meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kept per consensus. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asuna (Sword Art Online)

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

Just like Sinon and Leafa, the article was still not improved and has no commentary exceot the anime news network source from the concept and creation section about the character but only passing mentions and listicles/rankings. Those merchandise sources doesn't help either with notability and merely saying "that it just exist" (again). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions and Video games. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Question But what about the Creation and conception and Critical commentary sections? How are they no commentary about the character but only passing mentions and listicles/rankings? Daranios (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I actually refer mostly from reception only. Re-edited my rationale, but that along isn't enough. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 21:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Sword Art Online characters. Sources are largely about the anime's storyline, rather than Asuna as a character in particular. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the Critical commentary is neither trivial nor based on passing mentions. Together with the Creation and conception section this constitutes a non-stubby article fulfilling WP:WHYN, which is further rounded out by the other sections. So I see neither a policy-based reason for deletion nor how deletion of this article would benefit Wikipedia overall. Daranios (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with you, and vote to keep this article as well. Historyday01 (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At least one sentence long scholarly analysis in this book. Not seeing much else, sadly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the findings above. Also, this is just a reminder that Anime News Network has links below some of their articles to WP:RS in Japanese. They are only reporting the news in English as per this example "via AmiAmi News". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. From some quick searching I found further sources in IGN, a chapter by Steven Foertsch entitled "Metamodernity, American Transcendentalism and Transhumanism in Japanese Anime" (description of Asuna on page 94) [Chapter 3 of Anime, Philosophy and Religion (2023) (ed. Kaz Hayashi & William Anderson, Wilmington, DE: Vernon Press), pp. 73-98 as noted here ], description of Asuna throughout the article "Lost in communication: The relationship between hikikomori and virtual reality in Japanese anime", small mention on page 532 of Zachary Samuel Gottesman's "The Japanese settler unconscious: Goblin Slayer on the ‘Isekai’ frontier", small mention on page 65 of "Getting into the Schwing of Things: Hunter x Hunter’s Progressive Gender Depictions and Exploration of Non-Binary Possibilities" (Masters Thesis). And that isn't even including articles from CBR here, here, here and here. So there are undoubtedly various sources about her. I wish the OP had worked on improving the pages rather than an AfD. As I say over and over in these discussions, such issues could be resolved through editing, rather an AfD. This AfD seems highly unnecessary in more ways than one. Historyday01 (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TRIVIAL. Significant coverage is more than just a trivial mention. What are the WP:THREE best sources I'm supposed to look at to prove that she has significant discussion, and not in CBR, which is a content farm that does not indicate notability? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CBR featured a listicle... with Asuna as the focus, not an entry. Plenty of RS commentary for arguably the second most important character in the franchise. Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Websites like CBR and IGN never counts as a part of Asuna's character ability. All of them are just a bunch of people's point of views, But not as a character written by a production stuff. Other references are just a merchandise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.143.241.121 (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP notes that There is consensus that IGN is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture, as well as for film and video game reviews given that attribution is provided. It has no articulated opinion in CBR, but we have repeatedly used it in pop culture topics like this one, so your perspective is essentially unsupported and deviates from working consensus. Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the extensive sourcing discussed by Historyday01, clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. Also the "listicles/rankings" can still be a contributor to notability, WP:SIGCOV is unequivocal and clear that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The "Creation and conception" and "Critical commentary" sections have decent sources and demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage of this character, and a lot of valid information in the article. Wouldn't work to just merge it over to a list article. Dream Focus 05:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna burst a bubble here, This seems bias that Asuna is always a favorable character, People saying she's "canon" on every arcs. But she's not a core or main character on some arcs like Phantom Bullet. 103.143.241.125 (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why keeping Asuna? If Leafa and Sinon are just "Nobody's Characters" or minors being removed their entries 103.143.241.125 (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on whatever random group of people notice and show up to participate. I own the Sword Art Online Progressive novels, the writer stating the two main characters should be together at the start, she a main character there. In the anime as well she was in most episodes. Anyway, its about what coverage can be found and if that convinces people the article should be kept. Dream Focus 20:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current sourcing is competent enough to warrant notability and the references provided by Historyday01 surmount any doubt I have in spite that I admittedly don't care much for Sword Art Online. Doesn't help that the arguments for deletion are either broad or ignore the other sources established within the article. Yet another instance of WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep SAO is one of the most popular anime ever created, there is MORE than enough coverage to deem this article notable. I agree with Historyday that this AFD was highly unnecessary and could have been avoid with a WP:PEERREVIEW. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 04:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a whole lot of WP:ITSPOPULAR here. What are these examples of "more than enough coverage" in your opinion? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Once again, there are entire articles devoted to the character that are used as existing references, most of which are at least reliable enough to demonstrate notability. There are also scholarly articles that can range from passing mentions to having entire paragraphs dedicating to the series and the characters roles within it. The fact that is consistently used as an example regarding trends and tropes within anime demonstrates at least some academic notability. Again, most of the arguments for deletion are really only vetted against the use of Valnet sources and either ignore or completely omit any mention of the other reliable sources already within the article and I have yet to see an actual and reasonable argument for a merger. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ridhi Arora

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

Completely unreferenced except for a LinkedIn profile and YouTube playlist, a quick WP:BEFORE doesn't show up anything at all. Furthermore, the amount of unreferenced BLP statements and need for complete rewriting to make it encyclopedic mean that a WP:TNT is needed in any case. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 12:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Theatre, Finance, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO. Zero coverage I can find about this person; only hits that come up are for a fashion show or designer. Could be a hoax for all we know. Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Full of promotional language but no reliable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely nothing I can find to show notability. This could also be deleted as a webhost violation or moved to a draft. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very much guessing these are likely the same person. Userpage appears to have already been speedy deleted twice but quickly recreated, I'll tag it again. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 20:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References of press articles, press interviews, imdb profile, and YT links have been added for notability Ridhi Arora (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews, IMDB and YouTube do not establish notability. Press articles only do if they're from independent reliable sources. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pero Defformero

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

I may be missing something due to not reading Serbian, but I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG, or that there is a good WP:ATD. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aviation Week. Given the ongoing lack of interest in the topic, this ATD is probably the best outcome we're going to get. Star Mississippi 03:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna.aero

AfDs for this article:

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

The last AfD was closed as no consensus due to limited participation. As this has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, I really hope we can now get this resolved. It exists, but I couldn't find that sources to show it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a WP:RS, but there isn't much coverage on the publication itself. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aviation Week: Defunct website, with little notability found per the sources used. I don't find mentions of them beyond passing mentions. I'd be ok with a selective !merge into the same article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect‎ to Amoud University. This result should be considered a soft deletion. ✗plicit 12:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suleiman Ahmed Gulaid

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

Delete and redirect to Amoud University. Fails WP:GNG. The only SIGCOV I could find of the subject is in local Somalilander outlet Horn Diplomat [29]. He received routine coverage due to his involvement in Amoud University, but not enough to establish sufficient notability. Longhornsg (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Somalia. Longhornsg (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More sources: an award he received, and a speech he made, both reported on by national press. Still not sure about notability. BhamBoi (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 12:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Kumar Singh (civil servant)

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

Non-notable mid-level civil servant, mentioned only in passing (or not mentioned at all) in sources cited, which are on the whole about a 2015-17 jurisdictional dispute at a university, so WP:BLP1E at best. Couldn't find anything better than the sources cited in a WP:BEFORE search. Previously soft deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manoj Kumar Chauhan under this article's original title Manoj Kumar Chauhan; moved to current title by article creator in 2022. Wikishovel (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Wikishovel (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 12:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vinh Khuat

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

Sources don't show how this person is notable. ¹⁴¹ Pr {contribs} 13:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Vietnam, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The sources in the article might not show notability, but a Google search brings up a ton of results in Vietnamese media. Unfortunately, I do not speak Vietnamese so I cannot assess the reliability of those sources, but it's sufficient to presume multiple reliable secondary exist, thus fulfilling the notability criteria. [30] [31] [32] [33] @Praseodymium-141: have you checked the sources in the Vietnamese page ? --Broc (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 international animation festivals. ✗plicit 12:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Animation Film Festival

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

Does not meet WP:GNG; sources are either WP:SELFPUB] or a *very* small mention. TLA (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and England. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources used meet WP:GNG, and I can't find anything better after searching. Only brief mentions on unsuitable websites.Thebookstamper (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contested soft deletion at WP:REFUND.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for relisting and restoring the British Animation Film Festival page. I have added more secondary/tertiary citations to the page with new information and images as well as redirecting the URL website link due to previous links being discontinued because of website and Film Festival Guild rebranding. I hope this helps and many thanks again. Chaddy711 (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest a redirect to List of international animation festivals?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mushy Yank. Most of the sources added are blogs or other non-RS so not helpful. S0091 (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Rauf Mehdi

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

Lacking sources and not very well-known. Historianfox (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Engineering, Afghanistan, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he doesn't seem to be very significant. Could be insufficient for Wiki Rapanomics (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)‎ PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntas necandi

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

Obscure legal term. Uncited for 14 years. I can't find any significant coverage discussing this concept (quite a few very brief mentions). I would prefer a merge (amounting to a mention given the article is two sentences) and redirect but I can't think of where to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Law. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without prejudice to animus nocendi, where it is already discussed. The term is used in Italian books that seem to be discussing the intention to commit homicide [34] [35] (see especially the section heading on pages 726 and 1679 respectively). Cf the expression "animus necandi" which certainly means the intention to commit homicide [36] [37]). I think it would probably be a good idea to add "animus necandi" (which seems to satisfy GNG) to the article as well. We do not presently have an article on voluntas [38]. James500 (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am apparently stupid, because I somehow did not notice that article existed (despite the fact this one links to it...). Yeah that's a great target. Should I withdraw this then? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to you doing that if you wish. I have no objections to you immediately merging the article if you wish. James500 (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meyah Romeo

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a Trinidadian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2016, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Trinidad and Tobago. JTtheOG (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Michigan and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Ratan Singh

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Being the National President of an organization alone doesn't establish notability. – DreamRimmer (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone is able to show decent non-English sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 10:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources available on google which establishes the notability, only the news of surrendering to the police, release from the jail and welcoming by the supporters. -- QuadriSyedSahab(T · C 09:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhermy Fuentes

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a Bolivian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2012, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2022, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bolivia. JTtheOG (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear WP:BEFORE has been done; nothing but trivial coverage has been located Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per all above. Svartner (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Salguero

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a Bolivian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was this interview from 2019. JTtheOG (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bolivia. JTtheOG (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Glow Up: Britain's Next Make-Up Star#Series 4 (2022). Kurykh (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glow Up: Britain's Next Make-Up Star (series 4)

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

Contested draftification, no sourcing to establish notability for the particular series. Star Mississippi 22:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Star Mississippi 22:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glow Up: Britain's Next Make-Up Star#Series 4 (2022). Fails GNG, sources found are primary, listings, and promo. // Timothy :: talk 16:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glow Up: Britain's Next Make-Up Star#Series_4_(2022): no sources to support a standalone article about Series 4. Owen× ☎ 01:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 08:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Polanco

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

Poorly sourced footballer BLP. I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, instead finding only passing mentions (2012, 2014, 2015, etc.). JTtheOG (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Dominican Republic. JTtheOG (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual drainage systems

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

Fails WP:LISTCRIT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. "Unusual" is not well-defined and so there isn't any particular inclusion criteria. Jasper Deng (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real list criteria as to what an 'unusual' system is, and no references to provide notability for the list. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explain: From 22oct23 Casiquiare canal, Echimamish River and Manych River were deleted and moved to River bifurcation. Some others were moved to Lake bifurcation or deleted. This made the remaining list useless and deletible.The original reason for the list was that, given something like the Casiquiare canal, the reader would want to know if there were similar oddities. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatem Zeine

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

Nomination on behalf of by 24.7.88.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): Article and sources do not appear to fulfill the criteria of WP:NOTE - it doesn't help that it was written by a contributor with a clear WP:COI. Searching for "Hatem Zeine" on google etc doesn't give any results that would help with WP:NOTE. (permalink) – Joe (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Jordan. – Joe (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, England, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lots of articles written by this person as a Forbes Council member, none of which makes them notable. Nothing found otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the IP is quite right; I'm finding a lot of social media, business-churnalism and the TechCrunch article which is uncomfortably close to interview, but nothing that convinces me of independent recognition unprompted by the subject. It might be too soon? Not notable in Wikipedia's sense at the moment. Elemimele (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The arguments have been brief, and there doesn't seem an obvious consensus from the discussion. I have given drive-by IP comments less weight. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Akora Khattak

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

There seems to be some confusion (among sources), as to the date, location, and even name of this battle. So is it one battle or synthases of more than one action?

Also all of the sources seem to be single-line mentions, (at least the ones that I can check). Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Sikhism, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This article has many solid Book references that are all working properly. I checked today to confirm it. Added an additional archived reference to the article today...Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most sources are unreliable and some are hard to verify. Couple sources have one-liners about the battle except for one. The date is disputed among sources. I do not see any useful contribution of this article.RangersRus (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A significant battle and has good coverage in reliable sources. Referencing can be improved but the sources already present in the article are also enough to have this article on Wikipedia. Muneebll (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing of value in this article. Even the sources are questionable which do not sgree with one another.23.25.75.145 (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Niche article and heavy reliance on snippets and questionable citations. The information here is so poorly-framed I wouldn't know what to do with it as-is.208.184.20.115 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient WP:RS exist detailing the battle, and most of the references cited in the article do provide full view.

I don't know on which basis some editors here can call it poorly sourced. One just has to visit the article to verify that the sources are good enough to merit a stand-alone article. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closer: Please take a closer look at the !votes of IPs, because they are very clearly sockpuppets based on their similar arguments and the fact that they have made edit only at this AfD thread. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE The refs provided are only short passing mentions and I don’t see anything more substantial. There isn't much in detail about the battle then a sentence or two. 63.86.0.91 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not every individual fight mentioned somewhere in a book needs its own article especially when there is not enough information in multiple articles. Major Conflicts in sources in every aspect and most are just unreliable. 173.167.254.157 (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: article creator was CU-blocked not long after creating this article. -- asilvering (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There have been no comments for a few weeks; the conclusion is that the community doesn't care if we have this article or not. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social Income

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

Sources in the article are from blogs, directories, interviews, primary or passing mention; appears to be WP:REFBOMB. Only one source (Borgen Magazine) appears to be secondary with SIGCOV. PROD was removed with the addition of an interview and a promo piece repeating what the NGO does. At present, does not satisfy WP:NONPROFIT or the WP:GNG, happy to withdraw if SIGCOV, secondary independent reliable sourcing can be shown. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Africa, and Switzerland. Goldsztajn (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Random Institute: Random Institute and its head, Sandino Scheidegger, founded the Social Income organization. The organization's name makes it difficult to find sources establishing notability, but we have enough to include it as a section in the older organization's page. Owen× ☎ 14:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @OwenX – while both entities were indeed founded by Sandino Scheidegger, it is important to note that they are distinct, separate legal organizations, each with its own unique mission and operational focus. The Random Institute primarily functions as an art institution, whereas Social Income is recognized as an official NGO and is registered as a tax-exempt entity in Switzerland.

Merging these pages would not provide added value to Wikipedia users. Instead, it could potentially lead to confusion, as the separate identities and missions of each organization are significant and merit individual recognition. Keeping the pages separate ensures that Wikipedia offers clear, accurate, and comprehensive information about each entity, allowing users to understand their distinct natures and contributions.

Thank you for considering this perspective in your decision-making process. DanielBallo (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the distinction between the two organizations, and it certainly made my decision more difficult in arriving at my suggestion to merge the two. The alternative, however, is to delete the article about the Social Income organization, as it doesn't meet our standard of notability by itself. Opting for the lesser evil, I recommend we keep some of the contents as a section in Random Institute, while highlighting the fact that the two are different organizations with different purpose and structure, but with common founders. If and when there is enough significant coverage about Social Income to establish notability, the article can be spun off and revived from the redirect, with your old version serving as a starting point. Owen× ☎ 23:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Goldsztajn – I wish to address the concerns raised regarding the potential deletion of the page. It's important to consider the variety of sources that have covered the subject, including the coverage in Borgen Magazine, which, as you've already noted, is a noteworthy source. Notable among other sources are P.S. Zeitung (Wikipedia Link), where Min Li Marti, both editor-in-chief and a member of the national council, has featured content relevant to this topic, and Das Lamm, a prominent Swiss online newspaper. Additionally, there are offline sources such as Freundin Magazin, with an available PDF of the print version, and local reports (West Africa) from Hidden Voices Salone (PDF).

It's also worth noting the distinct nature of the initiative discussed on the page. Although a registered NGO with tax-exempt status in Switzerland, it operates uniquely as a civil solidarity movement driven by volunteers. This aspect is particularly relevant because it differs from traditional NGO structures, which actively seek press coverage, whereas Social Income does not follow this approach. Despite this, the initiative has successfully raised a substantial amount for a universal basic income pilot. This effort has not only been recognized by the Stanford Basic Income Lab but is also listed on the main UBI map, a detail that is mentioned in the article. As well as it is part of an open source movement which is also recognised by GitHub as one of seven meaningful open source initiatives, as mentioned in the article (third party source) and is supported by the official Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, with a confirmation letter linked in the article).

Furthermore, the initiative's focus on Sub-Saharan Africa contributes to its notability. This region is frequently underrepresented in the global news cycle, especially in the Global North, making the achievements and impacts of the initiative more noteworthy.

In light of this information, I believe the page in question fulfills Wikipedia's notability criteria and offers valuable, well-sourced information that enhances the platform's diversity and richness of content.

Thank you for considering these points. DanielBallo (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DanielBallo - any subject which appears in Wikipedia must be supported by significant coverage in mutliple reliable sources. What any of us think about a subject, its unique status, its importance etc is not relevant to a discussion of notability, all that matters is the existence of reliable sourcing. So, in terms of the sources presented other than Borgen Magazine, there does not appear to be any sourcing otherwise that reaches the criteria to be classified as reliable. Of the ones mentioned above:

Freundin Magazin - this is not SIGCOV, it is a short quarter page promotional piece, simply repeating what SI does.
Hidden Voices Salone - this is not independent, it is a publication of the Jamil and Nyanga Jaward Foundation one of Social Income's partners in Sierra Leone.
Das Lamm - this is a promotional interview.
PS Zeitung - same interview content as Das Lamm, credited to the same author.
Github Blog - a passing, promotional mention on a blog about SI's use of software.
DEZA/DDC/SDC - this is a primary source, it can used to confirm the existence of the organisation, but provides no indication of SI's notability. Aid agencies fund thousands of organisations world-wide, receiving ODA funding is not in itself an indicator of notability.

None of these sources provide secondary, independent SIGCOV. Unfortunately, SI's notability cannot be established with these. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Goldsztajn - I appreciate the clarity you've provided regarding the sources for Social Income. To further contribute to this discussion, I'd like to point out an additional article on the Flanders Arts Institute's website, which offers additional insight into what Social Income represents.

While I understand and respect your viewpoint on the nature of the sources previously cited, I'd like to offer a different perspective on a couple of points:

1. Interviews in newspapers: My understanding is that interviews can provide valuable insights into an organization's work and ethos. The interview in question (Das Lamm, PS Zeitung) offers substantial information about Social Income's activities and impact, which I would consider a valid source for understanding the organization, rather than merely promotional.

2. Funding and recognition by government bodies (DEZA/DDC/SDC): The fact that Social Income was selected for funding and expertise support by a government agency might be indicative of its significance in the field. While I acknowledge that receiving funding alone does not establish notability, the selection process and the consequent support could be a testament to the organization's impact and relevance. DanielBallo (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DanielBallo: the problem with interviews, and why they are generally discounted in Wikipedia as a reliable source, is that they offer no *independent* assessment of the subject; it is what the subject wishes the audience to hear. As for an official government aid agency's assessment of those they fund - there are all sorts of criteria that they use to determine how to allocate funds, but none of them are the same as Wikipedia's guidelines on WP:NOTABILITY. Again, there's a problem of independence, all aid organizations will wish that the organisations they fund are seen in a good light, which is why, to reiterate, primary sources are discounted as a means to establish notability for Wikipedia. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editors are encouraged to move the page to a better title, especially if this results in easier sourcing. Owen× ☎ 21:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Museo Interactivo Kaná

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

It used to exist and there is some coverage, but I am not convinced it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Mexico. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Museo de Ciencia y Tecnologia Veracruz under which it has better sourcing albeit very local. I think there's enough to get it to WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 21:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with @Boleyn, I do not believe it meets Wikipedia:GNG and Wikipedia:ORG. Avishai11 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Jungle (2024 film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Scheduled for December 2024, filming just began, everything is announcements or WP:NEWSORGINDIA so fails WP:GNG as well. Case of WP:TOOSOON. I see it was deleted in September of last year but cannot see the log to determine the reason. CNMall41 (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CNMall41 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. It is too soon for this article as its still in production stage where there is possibility of many changes and nothing could be considered definite till it reaches post-production stage. I will say that move the article back to draft for now.RangersRus (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think draftify is normally a good WP:ATD and often move them myself. I am wondering if you think it is best in this case given the number of SOCKS that are constantly moving them back to mainspace? I've tried many times in the past and we always wind up right back here unfortunately. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This case I would say its appropriate to Delete but as an alternative, keeping the page on watchlist and reporting sock that tries to move page from draft to namespace is another option. RangersRus (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's good perspective. Either way will be work I guess. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. While the coverage is mostly routine, there is a lot of it. Hollywood films of similar magnitude are generally kept once filming has begun, so I can't in good conscience say delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will take a look at the references if you can point out the ones that are not press or churnalism or fall under NEWSORGINDIA. I am also curious how to judge "magnitude" if you can clarify. Maybe there is something I am overlooking. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have high confidence in my ability to judge the reliability of Indian sources given the very real concerns expressed in NEWSORGINDIA and the prevalence of churnalism in entertainment media generally. [39] [40] [41] and [42] all look to have involved at least some editorial rewriting though the ultimate sources are mostly PR pieces or social media posts. As for "magnitude" it is an admittedly subjective measure. What I actually did was observe that this is a sequel to Welcome Back (film) which came out in 2015. A quick search for 2015 Indian box office shows that Welcome Back was a top ten film in that market. Pages for Hollywood films that are sequels to top ten films are routinely created and kept once principal photography has begun based on coverage of similar depth (i.e. regurgitations of title, cast, and crew announcements). The sources I referenced above don't show a huge amount of editorial shaping and what they do have might be a purely stylistic to create an illusion of neutrality but they aren't what I would call "trivial" (i.e. one paragraph notices, or literal copies of press materials). I don't feel strongly about Welcome to the Jungle (2024 film) in particular (hence the week keep), but I do feel strongly that in so far as sourcing makes it possible we treat big budget Bollywood films the same as big Hollywood ones. In particular, the coverage that usually separates a film that gets an article at the start of filming and one that gets one on release is mostly routine coverage of production news such as casting that is 100% based on studio PR. Big films get their announcements covered and small ones don't. That is, as far as I can tell, the de facto notability standard and more or less what WP:NFILM says. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the in-depth response. Your "magnitude" explanation makes sense. And, note that Bollywood Films should always be treated with the same "rule of thumb" as all film industries. I have actually seen some recently thanks to living in a large enough city. However, they should also be treated with the same "notability" standards. I will do a full source assessment later today and post for everyone. Hopefully that will provide some clarify. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep -per Eluchil404 ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 05:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Actual analysis of the source material about this subject would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Page creator is now a confirmed SOCK. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A discussion to merge or redirect doesn't require admin actions, so can be done outside of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hillhouse (ward)

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

A WP:MILL single member local electoral ward with an electorate of 2000 which was created 50 years ago and became defunct 15 years ago. Sources do not establish notability, providing only that the ward existed and its results, which can be and have been collated in election results articles; each of the ~2000 such wards in Scotland of the era does not require its own article.

Discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 15#Ward articles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dundee City Council wards indicated a preference among interested editors for the hundreds of current Scottish council wards (multi member, 3 times larger than the earlier wards, easier to source) to be merged into some kind of overview article rather than separate listings. As far as I'm aware, not much has been done in this direction and I don't see any urgent need to do so. But the creator of this article is aware of that issue, because I told him about it. He does a lot of hard work in this area but I think going down the road of creating these former wards is something that should be avoided, particularly in respect of creep into another region; Category:Wards of East Ayrshire is already a bit wild (there are 27 articles but only 9 current wards = 18 of these single-member wards, all created by same editor approximately a year ago). Crowsus (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Scotland. Crowsus (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPLACE: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Notability is not temporary so the fact the ward was abolished is irrelevant. I would search through the Hamilton Advertiser archives to further establish notability but unfortunately the British Newspaper Archive doesn't have them available online for the period the ward existed. I don't doubt there will be articles in the paper at the time to help establish notability.

Btw, thanks for bringing this up and your kind comments. I looked into this further after our discussion because I wanted to know what the policy was and how that affected things. That's when I came across the geographic features notability policies and they support that political subdivisions are notable in their own right. As I said in our discussion though, that doesn't mean that we can't have a situation where some of these for one council are listed in one article but others have wards with their own articles. Multiple solutions to the same problem exist on Wikipedia and they can peacefully co-exist. I understand what you're saying though, particularly with categorisation (maybe there should be current and former categories? A discussion for another day). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of that would be that the populated, legally recognised place is Hillhouse, Hamilton whereas this is a geopolitical unit based around that place, and so named after it. As you know, some councils could barely be bothered to name them and just used numbers. I'm struggling to imagine what even the Advertiser would have to say about the ward (as opposed to the neighbourhood) other than its councillor and the election results to elect said councillor. I read the Rutherglen Reformer quite regularly between the 90s and 2000s but even with pages to be filled, I can't recall much mention of the local wards beyond the most basic listings. Could be wrong.... Crowsus (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, the unnamed ones are a minefield and I think a catchall article rather than individual articles would be better for them. I had thought there was something in the policy about places having a name but I couldn't see it when I checked today which is why I hadn't created any articles on unnamed wards. If that is the intent of the policy though, it would definitely be worth rephrasing. Every ward, current and former, in the UK is legally recognised, it's written down in statute, so if that shouldn't confer notability that should be cleared up. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge An electoral district is not what NPLACE covers, which is the municipality or similar. The ward doesn't actually exist as anything except as a boundary from which representatives are elected. I agree with the discussions elsewhere that for the local level, electoral districts should be consolidated in main articles rather than as dozens or scores of individual articles. Reywas92^Talk 19:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South Lanarkshire Council#Wards: Fails GNG, sources are mill election news, agree with nom and Reywas92 reasoning. WP:NPLACE clearly was not and is not intended to mean every election district/precinct/ward is notable for its own article. // Timothy :: talk 15:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DYRC. Star Mississippi 02:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aksyon Radyo U.S.

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

I can't find any reliable sources that could support the notability of the subject. Not to mention, the article has been unreferenced for a long time. Israel's Son 03:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Israel's Son 03:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creator was a sockmaster, and this is complete nonsense about a station in one community having an American-based format based in California that doesn't broadcast there; there's just nothing for this to stand on, and it's completely made up. Nate • (chatter) 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MrSchimpf, salting may be considered if the sockpuppetry problem exists. -Ian Lopez @ 16:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DYRC: Barely found any independent coverage about the defunct online station. Based on its website, it existed as a separate entity from DYRC until it closed shop a few years later. ASTIG 😎🙃
Redirect to DYRC, which was known as DYXR in the 2000s. Fails WP:NCORP as a separate entity from the station per Astig's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WBTL-LP

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ohio. Let'srun (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like another station that only ever aired national content (it would not surprise me if even the later-year infomercials were carriage of some itself-non-notable service), probably failing to obtain any significant coverage. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 which does not precluder a rename/scope which is a matter of editorial discretion Star Mississippi 02:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Pelagia

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

Nothing in the article suggests this character is notable, my BEFORE finds little of use. No Russian interwiki. The article is unreferenced (no footnotes). Maybe it could be rewritten into an article about a series (Sister Pleagia series) based on reviews or analysis of the series (this might be useful: [43]); sources are more likely to exist in Russian than English. If the article is not improved, however, due to failures of WP:V, WP:GNG and possible WP:OR, per WP:ATD-R I suggest this is redirected to the article about the author. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, Christianity, and Russia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article already is about the series; all three books redirect to this page. I easily found reviews for all three books. "A nun with a nose for adventure" (Los Angeles Times, Jan 2007), "Nun has sleuth skills, feminist views" (Philadelphia Inquirer, May 2008), "Eye-popping stuff" (The Independent, Nov 2009). Russian language skills are not necessary. Toughpigs (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toughpigs If the books are notable, they merit stand-alone articles, sure, but here we discuss the fictional character. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the books pages redirect to this page. This is the series page. It would be silly to delete the series page and then create stand-alone pages for each book. Toughpigs (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are really rather well-known books, translated into several languages, and doubtless with many reviews. I simply don't believe that a properly-done "BEFORE finds little of use" (did you make the same typo you do above?). If you think the article should be renamed Sister Pelagia series, do a RM. At the very least a merger to the author should be proposed. No valid deletion rationale given, just the usual chaff-storm of non-relevant policy shortcuts. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After discounting the comments from sock puppets and giving less weight to editors with a conflict of interest, there doesn't seem to be much appetite to keep the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Wilson (producer)

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

No sources that meet WP:GNG, there are a lot of mentions. Other sources are sponsored by some firm. Forbes 30 under 30 is marginally helpful. TLA (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, England, and Jamaica. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Forbes' 30 Under 30 is definitely helpful; it's an independent, reliable source directly covering the subject. The Sunday Times article [44] also indicates notability. Toughpigs (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Toughpigs, The Sunday Times article is marked "promoted content" by Quickbooks. So likely not WP:INDEPENDENT. TLA (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Sunday Times piece was published to shed light on a specific area of business. The user’s usage as a case study is genuine and should certainly be seen as a notable source. BVWilson (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete fabrication of the truth. The sources are from numerous reputable publications and were covered with editorial integrity. To say the Forbes piece is marginally helpful is borderline outrageous. I believe it is ranked as the world’s number one business publication across sectors.

The user was never an employee or affiliated with Quickbooks. The dealings of the Sunday Times with any private company is relative to their business model and does not affect the genuine nature of the user’s inclusion. BVWilson (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To the contrary sources meet WP:GNG. Notable sources include: Sky Sports, Forbes, Channel 4, Harper’s Baazar, The Sunday Times and Management Today. Amongst others. Because an article is sponsored by an outside firm does not jeopardize the editorial integrity pertaining to the inclusion of an independent individual who is not connected to the firm sponsoring. Also, even if the accusation held merit, that is only seen in one instance across many sources. —— BVWilson (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: BVWilson is likely a WP:COI. Name and WP:SPA-like contributions seem to suggest that. The sources mentioned by BVWilson are indeed WP:RELIABLE, but aren't even close to WP:SIGCOV. The Forbes, as I mentioned, is closest, but fails WP:100WORDS. The Times piece doesn't even have a byline, as it is paid content and not written by a staff writer of The Times / Sunday Times. Sure, Josh Wilson is impressive, but does not appear to meet WP:GNG for Wikipedia, unfortunately. If you would like, BVWilson, you can try to use WP:THREE. TLA (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with TLA, the sources on this article don't meet SIGCOV. GraziePrego (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Duplicate !vote: I disagree with GraziePrego. The inclusions are clearly WP:SIGCOV. Josh Wilson is clearly quoted ad nauseam throughout his sources. Outside of perhaps The Times - one could argue - every source meets WP:GNG. The Forbes piece is highly reputable and marks a significant accolade, irrespective of WP:100WORDS. BVWilson (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You only get one vote @BVWilson, please strike one of your two “keep” votes. GraziePrego (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last “keep” vote is stricken from the record. BVWilson (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's sources, including Forbes' 30 Under 30, Sky Sports, Channel 4, Harper’s Bazaar, The Sunday Times, and Management Today, collectively demonstrate notable coverage in alignment with Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines (GNG). While The Sunday Times article is labeled as 'promoted content,' its use as a case study in a respected publication contributes to the subject's overall notability. The Forbes recognition, in particular, signifies a noteworthy accomplishment. Disregarding word count, the subject's inclusion in reputable publications and industry lists establishes a clear pattern of notability. The claim of conflict of interest should be evaluated based on content rather than contributor, as the sources and accolades fulfill GNG criteria, justifying a keep vote." KarKuZoNga (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Strike, sock Star Mississippi 02:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are a lot of primary sources here, and primary sources do not count towards SIGCOV. It would be helpful if, per the nom.'s suggestion, someone presented the two or three best sources for discussion. The Forbes 30 under 30 must surely be oe of those though, and I think this might meet presumed notability under WP:PRODUCER. Criterion 4(c) has The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention. I would prefer to see some source discussion though, as that would show how to improve the page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naser Parvani

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

WP:REFSPAM likely WP:UPE. Sources are mainly press releases / WP:SELFPUB profiles. TLA (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delugan Meissl Associated Architects

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

Non WP:SIGCOV, a lot of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. TLA (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 GMA Network stations. ✗plicit 07:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYVB-TV

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

There does not seem to be significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. A possible redirect target would be List of GMA Network stations. MarioGom (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of GMA Network stations per nomination. -Ian Lopez @ 11:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Scottish Socialist Party. As for whether to delete the redirect after the merger, WP:RFD can make that determination. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Socialist Party United Left

AfDs for this article:

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

There were a lot of suggestions even with 2006's low standards to merge this to Scottish Socialist Party, and I think that's what we need to do. It isn't notable independent of them. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete - Merge content to Scottish Socialist Party. I'm not sure it's necessary as a redirect, it's a faction from a minor political party that didn't last very long. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete — Merge reliably sourced content to Scottish Socialist Party, then delete this article as the redirect title is unlikely to be searched. Despite being around for almost 18 years, :Scottish Socialist Party United Left" only returns 10 results on Google, all mirrors of Wikipedia. SSP-United Left returns a few hundred results, but the results that are from reliable sources are less than what you can count on two hands. Yue🌙 20:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. ✗plicit 07:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W15EB-D

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I knew this was coming and I strongly advise keeping this article because of its considerable station history prior to being part of Innovate Corp. I have recently made some updates by expanding the history section and trying to overall better the article, would appreciate some assistance. This is also one of the few stations Innovate Corp. has made efforts to improve upon, adding HD channels to it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Certainly any HC2/Innovate station that has any prior history has a leg-up on the stations they built from the ground up in the 2010s, but it's still hard to see how a station that appears to have only ever carried national services with little-to-no local content could attain the necessary significant coverage (its longest serving pre-HC2 owner was 3ABN). Most of the sources are databases (not considered SIGCOV), and one of those its its HC2 Broadcasting listing (definitely not independent coverage, also required for notability); the mid-2010s ownership changes, which are relatively routine business transactions, probably don't quite fall under SIGCOV either. To the extent this still matters, this is another survivor of last year's bulk nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of stations that carry national services with little-to-no local content in the United States, does that mean they all need to be deleted? This seems to be a rather high bar. The ref from HC2 Broadcasting can easily be replaced if that is deal breaker, there are a couple of third-party articles, already beating out a lot of other articles on Wikipedia. Yes, it survived last year's purge for good reason and should be the same for this year too. --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Only history has been translating networks without a minute of local content outside station IDs, and this one has a worse problem of 'revolving door networks' where nothing stays on a channel for very long, and it claims for the purposes of E/I programming, its fourth subchannel is its main channel (carrying either paid programming or Cozi TV's Spanish sister and certainly not watched by a regular viewer). If this group doesn't want to run stations seriously, it's not on us to indulge that fantasy with full-scale articles about what seems to be a shell game of multiple unwatched and unmonitored stations using the public airwaves. Nate • (chatter) 02:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your response does not particularly talk about the article, but the company that currently owns it. What if tomorrow this station is sold to someone else, would you then suddenly find it relevant again? There are notability in this article despite @Mvcg66b3r saying otherwise at the top. Please consider the merits of the article and not the station's parent company, thank you. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's just not much to say about the station, which in the past rebroadcast 3ABN without any local shows, and now a rotating list of networks chosen not to fit the demographic, but based on what barter deal a private equity group in New York hammered out across the country (if anything, to an area oversaturated with religious networks already as-is, which Vision Latina and Universal Living Faith are). It would be one thing if there was actual management in the area that programs to the community; there has never been a person with this station or most of Innovate/HC2's other licenses. For this station, its documented history is effectively a number of moves of the transmitter or construction permits, all of which before HC2 were between 3ABN's main office in Illinois and DC, and now the domain of a paper pusher at 450 Park Avenue in New York who couldn't tell you what HAAT is, much less anything about this station beyond the calls and city of license. Nate • (chatter) 04:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your candor regarding the station. Thank you. --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The current sources are either FCC data (#1 and #4), RabbitEars (#2 and #3), routine business transactional reports (#5 and #6) another database (#7) and a press release (#8) Let'srun (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aliw Broadcasting Corporation#Inactive. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DWIM-AM

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

No significant coverage in RS. Could be redirected to Aliw Broadcasting Corporation. MarioGom (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The first source states that the station broadcasts from Oriental Mindoro. The rest of the sources talk about the station's programming and updates. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG 😎🙃 10:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mere primary source records are not counted towards notability. MarioGom (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sources exactly do you see with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth? Just to be clear what you think is SIGCOV.

Keep Meets WP:GNG per Astig's argument. Sources mentioned are reliable enough and secondary, with the ones mentioned by Astig in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sources exactly do you see with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth? Just to be clear what you think is SIGCOV.

All except source 1 are reliable and in-depth enough IMV since they're about the station's programming. SBKSPP (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection if a consensus redirect emerges, but I can't find one I think is useful.

Comments	Source
Fails SIGCOV. PDF fact sheet about another subject. Mentioned in a footnote: "* with 1 AM Radio Station - DWIM 9.36kHz "	1. ORIENTAL MINDORO FACTS AND FIGURES 2014
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing about the subject	2. ^ Slain Mindoro broadcaster denied protection by court
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing about the subject	3. ^ Calapan broadcaster shot dead
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing about the subject	4. ^ Mindoro broadcaster killed; 33rd slain under Aquino
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing about the subject	5. ^ Editorial: International Widows Day
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing about the subject	6. ^ Journalist seeks court protection from would-be assassins

// Timothy :: talk 14:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same reason as Timothy. Most of the references in the article have nothing to do with the subject. Israel's Son 02:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT INSTEAD. Redirect to Aliw Broadcasting Corporation is perfect instead of deleting. 49.145.111.255 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TimothyBlue. Israel's Son 16:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel's Son, you can't have two bolded !votes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the available reference material about this subject would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the source analysis above. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 11:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect instead to Aliw Broadcasting Corporation#Inactive per arguments of TimothyBlue and HighKing and possibly add a blurb in that section explaining why that station is no longer active per reliable sources. -Ian Lopez @ 16:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Torr

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

Subject fails NPROF and ANYBIO. BEFORE search revealed no significant coverage. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Alabama. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources found about him, aside from four JSTOR mentions. Thus, no sigcov, no notability. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His citation record in Google Scholar is not bad, with quite a few double-digit citation counts and one triple-digit, but this is not strong enough in a high-citation field to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. In the early 2000s he seems to have bounced around from UAB Huntsville to the University of South Carolina to Virginia Commonwealth U. (judging from publication affiliations) and then his academic career appears to have evaporated without trace, not a good sign. Now all that can be found are extremely fringy web sites. I don't think there's anything here on which to base an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPROF, and WP:ANYBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. May pass WP:Prof#C1 from GS citations in this not particularly high citation field (not nearly as high as computer science or biomed). His move into fringy activities may prejudice some against him, but I think that his other activities are enough for a weak keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for the reasons mentioned above. I see no demonstration of notability in this article or elsewhere.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think he actually does pass WP:Prof#C1, as Xxanthippe mentioned, based on the number of citations as well as the number of peer-reviewed publications. But the article is a stub and needs significant improvement. If the fringy stuff makes him more notable then it should be included but if not, not. Qflib (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qflib and @Xxanthippe, just to check we are discussing the same person, I found his citations at Scispace which reports 151 pubs (reasonable), 4150 citations (low) and an h-factor of 29 (low). To me those numbers are too low. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If those statistics are reliable, and I have my doubts, they would lead to a keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

That h-factor is at the Associate Professor level. IMHO > 50 is a base level for an h-factor of a notable scientist, perhaps 30 for a mathematician. He would be marginal for promotion to full professor at an R1 university, particularly as many of his pubs are reports. Maybe I am harsher than many... Ldm1954 (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

30 for mathematicians would be a pretty high standard for anyone who doesn't do applied/CS stuff... JoelleJay (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scopus has him at 2823 citations, 163 docs, and h-index of 23. For most subfields of physics that is very low, but I'll have to check what his coauthors' citation profiles look like. JoelleJay (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked at all 55 coauthors of his with 30 papers (average paper count among all 105 coauthors is 64):

Total citations: average: 4189, median: 2600, Torr: 2824. Total papers: 113, 90, 163. h-index: 29, 27, 23. Top 5 citations: 1st: 473, 360, 360. 2nd: 260, 173, 209. 3rd: 187, 138, 201. 4th: 150, 117, 132. 5th: 133, 97, 129.
While he does have more papers and more highly-cited top papers than the median and sometimes average researcher in his field, what we're looking for is someone who is outstanding in their subfield, not slightly above average. Worth also pointing out that compared to people in the same subfield today, his citation profile is much less impressive (e.g. coauthors with far fewer papers who are still active include people like Maura Hagan, whose metrics are 7597, 102, 49, 621, 549, 415, 297, 267). JoelleJay (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Xorshift. Daniel (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xoroshiro128

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

No indication from reliable third party sources that this is notable ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Owen× ☎ 20:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've used Google Scholar to find multiple sources covering the subject, including: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9132873, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377042718306265, https://caislab.kaist.ac.kr/publication/paper_files/2019/SCIS 2019_NJ_JU final.pdf Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Scholar searches reveal multiple notable sources, such as IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, and a publication from KAIST, covering the subject in depth. These sources, including https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9132873, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377042718306265, and https://caislab.kaist.ac.kr/publication/paper_files/2019/SCIS 2019_NJ_JU final.pdf, provide substantial coverage and analysis, establishing the notability of the subject. As these reliable third-party sources contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the topic, the article merits retention."KarKuZoNga (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Sock strike[reply]
This feels a lot like an AI generated response. You've just summarised the comment above using the exact same sources that @Deltaspace42 provided. Why a set of quotation marks floating at the end of your comment too? GraziePrego (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing comment doesn't make it ai. Not sure about your point. If you have issue with my Keep vote and its justification please give proper argument to oppose that. KarKuZoNga (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to or merge with ~~Sebastiano Vigna~~ Xorshift. I'm not very familiar with RNGs as a research topic, but this one does seem to be awfully niche. Of the 11 Google scholar hits, one is a primary source, one is a duplicate and another four are preprints or Github pages. --Tserton (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Xorshift or else just redirect there. Xoroshiro128 is an algorithm in a class of PRNG Xorshift algorithms. The propposed target page is generic, describing both the issue, for the interested reader, and containing some detail on the algorithms. Xoroshiro gets a mention but this specific algorithm doesn't, except in saying it is equivalent to another. Whether it needs further mention is debatable, but a paragraph about this algorithm would fit on that page. In this paper,[45] we see that this algorithm is in the class of xorshift PRNG algorithms and not distinct from it. Tserton's proposed redirect target is valid too, but I would suggest that any reader searching for this algorithm is less interested in the creator, and more interested in xorshift PRNGs, and that Xorshift is thus the better target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that's a useful suggestion. Tserton (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, uncontested. Owen× ☎ 20:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Nissman

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

~~BLP of a U.S. district attorney who has a solid career but I don’t see sources to suggest he is notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Caribbean, and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This raises an interesting question. We have never established that a U.S. Attorney is inherently notable. On the one hand, they are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and have substantial power over federal legal prosecutions in their jurisdiction. On the other hand, they still answer to orders from the Attorney General, and can be fired by the administration that appointed them in the first place. One would think that a U.S. Attorney would receive fairly substantial coverage, to be found if sought. BD2412 T 23:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning~~ keep, based on a review of Newspapers.com coverage. Apparently, the subject has also written a number of books in the field, and received additional coverage for running unsuccessfully for a seat on the Oregon Supreme Court in 1984. BD2412 T 23:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Georgia (U.S. state) and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: having added about a dozen sources and found some more likely points of notability, particularly with respect to the subject's publications reviewed in reliable sources, I am upgrading my !vote to "keep". BD2412 T 15:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw thanks for finding those sources. I think he passes as the author of several books that have been independently reviewed and amount to an important contribution to his field. Mccapra (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto McCausland Dieppa

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

A lot of WP:REFSPAM, and it seems like WP:COI. A lot of the sources are very questionable, being WP:SELFPUB or defunct. Apart from a few musical profiles, I can't find much online either that meets WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Obviously this need cleanup but there is coverage to meet WP:BASIC. [46], [47], [48] in El Heraldo (Colombia). 200.107.96.222 (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:COMPOSER and WP:MUSICBIO. Article is clearly a mess and excessively promotional, but not a reason to delete. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CurryTime. Meets GNG amd coverage. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of A-Scan (1 Dimension) OCT (1981-1990)

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

Scope is extremely specific and doesn't make sense as a standalone article. Instead, this could best be included in Optical coherence tomography or even as part of a new "History of optical coherence tomography" article, although the content isn't optimal for mainspace. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 00:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ultra-niche "history" article, heavy reliance on primary sources. With major cleanup I might consider a merge with Optical coherence tomography, but the information here is so specific and so poorly-framed I wouldn't know what to do with it as-is. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Medicine, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Little too niche for a wiki article. Could perhaps be worked into the main OCT article, but seems pointless, given how technical this information is. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.mapsofthepast.com/ellis-county-ks-kansas-everts-1887.html

[1]