Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 20	October 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patric Rozario

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

Created by a single purpose editor. Only 1 article links to this List of Malaysian artists. Many of the sources are not reliable like youtube and wordpress blog. Fails WP:ARTIST. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Malaysia, and Qatar. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did my best to clean up the article but what remains doesn't pass WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The citations that could be reviewed do not show significant coverage to show notability. See source table below. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not substantial or has critical attention and violates WP:NARTIST (as said by WomenArtistUpdates). Does not follow notability in some references as well as in general. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 17:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20210919231432/https://www.marhaba.qa/introducing-patric-rozario/		tourist destination magazine		✘ No
Rozario creates magic with thread" The Star Metro 23 September 2000.	?	?	? "The Star"?	? Unknown
Alluring and enduring - pearl has a new twist" Qatar Today 10 September 2010 p 78.	?	?	? print publication	? Unknown
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Art expo showcases Qatar's architectural landmarks.-a0253115716	? The Free Library	?	looks like a press release about an exhibition	✘ No
https://dohanews.co/childrens-art-project-to-remember-villagio-fire/	?	?	announcement for an event	✘ No
"From trash to treasure: coming soon at The Pearl" Qatar Tribune 10 March 2014.	?	?	? print publication. Title indicates it is a listing	? Unknown
https://www.fm-middleeast.com/operations/waste-management/article-27218-pearl-qatar-organises-trash-to-treasure-project		"facilities Managment" publication about garbage.	passing mention of Rozario	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20170510130907/https://www.iloveqatar.net/news/content/children-create-art-forvillaggio-fire-victims	?	? I heart Qatar	promotion for fire victims project	✘ No
From trash to treasure" Recycl Art.org, 5 June 2014.	?	?	? print publication	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Thank you, source assessment table clearly demonstrates GNG is not met. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Per meeting WP:GNG - multiple paths to notability. Tawker (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Tortured Poets Department (song)

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

Aside from brief mentions within links that give chart placements, this appears to rely entirely on album reviews, which is not a good sign as those are not on their own to warrant song articles per WP:NSONGS. This specifically states "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." With that said, we would need better links than what currently is used, and I don't believe sufficient coverage from credible secondary sources independent of album reviews is anywhere be found. Artist/label/producer/songwriter commentary wouldn't compensate for this when those are simply self-promotion. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while NSONG is debatable, this article definitely meets WP:GNG (Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. — Numerous album reviews have singled out this song). To add, this song is subject of third-party sources like Time or Entertainment Weekly. Ippantekina (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Album reviews singling out specific tracks is moot when they don't count towards song notability, though thankfully neither of links you gave are that and actually are centered on the title track itself, which is ideal. Something that admittedly gives me pause with them is how they partially consist of speculation on lyrics while other parts seem to go into tangential details on people mentioned by name. I guess it comes down to whether this central focus is a sufficient basis when taking out any gossipy or irrelevant bits. Either way, I'm glad they're not loaded entirely with such things. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IppantekinaDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 09:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ippantekina, plus any song by Swift is probably inherently notable at this stage. SNUGGUMS' point about the sources not relying on "gossipy or irrelevant" stuff is well made and reinforces my vote. Ceoil (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To say any song by a particular artist is "probably inherently notable" would be a stretch, and you appear to have overlooked how I said the parts that did contain gossip/irrelevant bits gave me pause, leaving me not fully certain how much merit they have when only focusing on the parts that are not. If you believe the good bits are enough, then that's understandable. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets the notability guidelines- I however agree with Ippantekina, it may not meet NSONG. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 17:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shae Keogh

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

Article doesn't meet GNG.

This very young football player has played in a cup game for a 3rd-tier Scottish club. I don't see any significant coverage, only passing references and some routine reporting. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 23:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Football, United Kingdom, and Scotland. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 23:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources, and no games to produce sources about. We need to wash out the perceived need to create articles on players with 0 or 1 game. Geschichte (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Unlikely to be notable anytime soon, given the level he plays at. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to agree. There is no indication he'll be notable for years to come. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 18:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and GiantSnowman. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Jimfbleak per criteria G4 and G11. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian calle

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

Recreation of salted title Brian Calle, which was protected from recreation back in 2017. Article has to be moved to the correctly capitalized title if kept. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, Mexico, and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G4 and WP:G11. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Díaz Noci

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

I don't see quite enough here to convince me that WP:PROF has been comfortably passed. Happy to hear other people's take. Uhooep (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Law, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . I see enough citations of this subject's work to think he meets C1 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I've been digging and I'm still on the fence whether or not the person is notable under WP:NPROF. The article as it is cites almost entirely info from him and multiple links that suggest secondary coverage are broken or do not direct to information about Noci specifically. If there were noted impact on the field from at least one or two external sources (e.g. an award or election to an academy, or even announcement for an invited speaking event at a University), I would be leaning keep. Since this has been relisted 2x, I wanted to leave some information I found to help others find info and provide their input. I think the only two WP:NPROF criteria are a combo of C1 and C4, or C7. For C1, Google Scholar citations are okay, but hard to judge based on numbers alone. Looking at Scopus gives a slightly less notable view looking at FWCI for Author Position box (1=average amount of citations in field) and in the Impact tab. He is a middle author in his most cited article. I can't find scholarly reviews that support a large impact in the field though, other than writing about online journalism earlier than most. For C4, I couldn't find anything super directly showing use of publications in courses or other info, but I think something like that would be . For books, two of the highest from WorldCat shows this book at 43 libraries and this one at 24. I just am not seeing enough independent writings or reviews/scholarly works citing Noci's work as highly impactful in the field. For C7, I did not find anything on his contributions as a commenter on radio/news shows, however this could be to do with my lack of Spanish and related language abilities. Cyanochic (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning keep. Far from my expertise and the language barrier is a barrier, but the GS citations[1] look quite healthy to me. Highest citns 794,585,315 with four more papers >200 and a further seven with >=100 citations. The subject is first author on the highest-cited item. If he mainly publishes in Spanish then that might impact citations too. Uhooep: Do you have any more specific concerns? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at edit history, this was translated from Spanish wiki, and went via AfC where it was accepted by Asilvering. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I don't know enough about the field to know what "highly cited" is for this guy in particular, so if you were hoping to get more context, I'll have to disappoint. But between the combination of "not science field" and "not English language", an h-index of 37 seemed really high to me. Well over the "good enough to be worth a full AfD discussion" bar I use when evaluating AfC drafts. -- asilvering (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: His contributions to research on journalism seem significant, specifically the fact that some of his work has been adopted(?) in a report from the UCD Centre for Digital Policy. It is hard to recommend keeping this article though considering there are very few sources in the article that could be considered "independent". Recon rabbit 17:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samo Burja

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

The subject of this article, Samo Burja, does not meet the guidelines for notability as outlined in WP:Notability (people). Specifically, there is insufficient coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources that demonstrate significant and sustained attention to his work. The existing references appear to be either self-published, related to niche interest groups, or promotional in nature, suggesting that the article may have been created for self-promotion rather than due to independent recognition. As a result, the article should be considered for deletion, per Wikipedia’s policies against self-promotion and non-notable biographical entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricaScribe (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC) Natg 19 (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this AfD was not formatted properly. Just fixed up the formatting and listed it for 21 Oct. Natg 19 (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Slovenia. Natg 19 (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lacks significant coverage to meet WP:Notability (People)

Tesleemah (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable coverage in Slovenian media as well.--A09|(talk) 13:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a fairly niche article, but I don't see any evidence of this being self-promotion. The article references work in several notable magazines.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage meeting GNG that I see -- there are some interviews/similar, but nothing else. No sign whatsoever of NPROF impact. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Gamer

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Site listing at review aggregators like GameRankings and Metacritic is not an indication of notability. Was recently PRODed, that was objected and redirected to Video game journalism but "Extreme Gamer" isn't mentioned in that article. List of video game websites could be a possible redirect but that list seems to be for only websites that have an article. Mika1h (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Video games, Websites, and Canada. Mika1h (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the user who added the PROD tag, obvious Delete for the same reasons I added that; long dead site with no notability. CoconutOctopus talk 06:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not promotion, and this article feels like it, with a dearth of coverage in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has no reliable sources, and is also written like a promotion. Agree per above. Bunnypranav (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCOMPANY and WP:GNG. Sir MemeGod  15:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ona Speedway. Daniel (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ona Airpark

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

Does not meet GNG. I found one article in FLYING Magazine, but GNG expects more than one source. Could be redirected to Ona Speedway which is next door. The two facilities operate jointly, as clearly shown on the website. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and West Virginia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ona Speedway, and perhaps also to Ona, West Virginia, which already mentions it, but doesn't include all of the same details. The difference between a deletion and a merge is that an effort is made to save all of the relevant or important details, such as the year of establishment, its precise location, or authority under which it was licensed. I note that when I looked over the article earlier, it erroneously placed it "in Milton". Not being familiar with it, I checked the location on Google Maps. It's not "in" either Ona or Milton, but is adjacent to Ona, and not nearly as close to Milton. I adjusted the wording accordingly. P Aculeius (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ona Speedway per @P Aculeius. I note that when I looked over the article earlier, it erroneously placed it "in Milton"... It's not "in" either Ona or Milton, but is adjacent to Ona, and not nearly as close to Milton. It's not necessarily erroneous; the FAA airport record indicates Milton. I've noticed that FAA records for rural airports sometimes list a seemingly incorrect city or town. I'm guessing it has to do with peculiarities in rural postal delivery, but the address on the airfield website is in Ona. I dunno. Carguychris (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like as good a reason as any to explain it. But it's definitely not in Milton, so it shouldn't be described as though it were, irrespective of where its mail originates (or once did) or what the FAA record says (and that could also just be careless registration, or perhaps some technical quirk relating to the manner or type of municipality). In describing anything clearly, reality should trump misleading information! P Aculeius (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little more digging. The WV Assessment record indicates that the airport and speedway are in Ona, which is a spread-out unincorporated community, whereas Milton is an incorporated town with an identifiable central business district. FAA airport records always indicate the distance to the nearest city center (the airfield is 4 NM west), so the airfield owners probably listed Milton for the sake of convenience. Carguychris (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Hale

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

Not a notable actress. She only has one significant film credit, which was over 20 years ago and she does not act anymore. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A single role played does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Though she does appear in news articles occasionally ([2], [3]), the coverage is not what I would consider substantial, and only serves to make reference to the fact that she was in School of Rock (and is getting engaged apparently). Recon rabbit 17:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Both delete and keep arguments have merits, and I don't see a relist as likely to bring clarity. Malinaccier (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thabiso Sikwane

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

Trivial Article that does not comply with WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. According to WP:BIO's additional criteria nor with WP:DIRECTOR Pitille02 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough reliable sources on the article demonstrate notability. Jeanette Fiery Red Haired Martin (dime?) 19:00, 14 October, 2024 b(ITC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Radio, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has received moderate attention after their passing (and prior). She headlined multiple secondary reliable publications. A simple Google search is enough. dxneo (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She passes WP:SIGCOV quite well. Here are some sources [4], [5], [6], [7]

Tau Corvi (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources in the article are either eulogizing her or gossiping about her personal life, and a BEFORE Google search turned up similar results with DJ Fresh dominating most of the headlines. There's no significant independent coverage of Sikwane's actual career. This is reflected in the article having been created nearly two months ago after her death (which alone does not automatically establish notability) but currently still a stub with next to no content. Is she known more for her media work, or her relationship with DJ Fresh? 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 03:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sources about her and her life [8], also before her death [9][10]. BilboBeggins (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Keep" has the numbers, but I'm not sure the delete !vote has been fully addressed. Can we get a closer source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: yeah, I'm going to have to go with HopalongCasualty here. The sources in the article and presented above are ones that only either cover her relationship with DJ Fresh or her death more than her media career. I did also do an extended search on South African and nearby newspapers before her death (from 1/1/2000 to 1/1/2024, as a note) and found a brief burst of coverage on her being on Power FM in 2016, and a 2023 news article of a "hijacking ordeal" she was involved in. Those I'm doubtful establish notability of Sikwane outside of her former relationship with DJ Fresh or the coverage of her death more than her extended media career. Otherwise, I only found brief, passing mentions of her across several, if not many, sources I did find in the BEFORE search. Therefore, delete per HopalongCasualty and the sources found here. ~ Tails Wx 21:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She was notable in her own right as a radio presenter.[11][12][13]. Again WP:WORLDWIDE needs to be taken into account-being unfamiliar with a subject doesn't make it more or less notable. The fact that she happened to have been married to a possibly more famous individual doesn't diminish her own notability. Park3r (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SIGCOV is followed as said by Tau Corvi. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 11:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Northern Line (İZBAN). asilvering (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mavişehir railway station

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

Tagged as uncited almost a year ago. I could not find enough good sources to show it to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I agree the article needs to be re-written and sourced, deleting this one in particular has no logic. I will go through these railway station articles in the coming days and add/expand to them with the new information and updates available. These articles were written years ago, and should be updated indeed. This comment goes for ALL IZBAN stations that are currently outdated. I will get to them all by the end of the month. (Central Data Bank (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep pending Central Data Bank's improvements. If the article can't be expanded after a reasonable amount of time (at least a couple of months) then merging and/or redirection to an appropriate broader article will be appropriate but there is no case for outright deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Northern Line (İZBAN). Entirely unsourced, and the promises of improvement appear to be empty considering Central Data Bank has not edited at all since October 11. Should this editor decide to actually make good on their promise, the article will be available in edit history still. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Northern Line (İZBAN) per Trainsandotherthings as train stations have to follow the WP:GNG policy. It's been proposed before that stations should have their own notability criteria (just like why we have legally populated towns with less than 100 people) but that failed to reach consensus multiple times. (see WP:NSTATION) JuniperChill (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: @User:Trainsandotherthings I have been unable to hold up my promise, as I have been swamped with work and can't promise a timeline. Redirect for now, if/when I find something notable about it, I will add to it. (Central Data Bank (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bombworks Records

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

Fails NCORP. The sources satisfactorily verify what's claimed, meaning that certain bands were released through them, but as a company, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. Possible promotional creation based on creator's association with music promoting business. Graywalls (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Graywalls (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete over the normal WP:ATD because, as Hmij points out, the redirect would not be kept at WP:RFD. asilvering (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Formula One World Championship

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. Royiswariii (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SSSB (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:GNG is clearly not met, and won't be for some time. So a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. We could restore the redirect to Formula One#Contracted Grands Prix, but this is just a list of events with events with contracts, so readers can see which events are contracted upto and included a given season (in this case 2027). However, I'm not convinced this is a helpful redirect. So my preference is defentily delete. SSSB (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Formula One#Contracted Grands Prix per WP:TOOSOON. No sponsors, no venue, no teams, no content except the header at the top of each Grand Prix, nothing I could find on the event either except speculation which didn't seem reliable. Conyo14 (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as way WP:TOOSOON, no significant information is known about this season to warrant an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Formula One. A bit too soon for this to actually have any content to write about. Can be converted back to an article when necessary. Kline • talk • contribs 16:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect. Of course the article itself cannot be kept given there clearly isn't the coverage of the 2027 season yet to sustain an article, but I agree with SSSB that there is virtually nothing about the 2027 season at Formula One#Contracted Grands Prix, so this should be deleted outright, not kept as a redirect. A7V2 (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oppose redirecting: There's no relevant information for the 2027 season at the target, so if anybody were to search for this page's title, the target would be misleading. Yes, there are contracted grand prix through x years, but that's not really what people are actually trying to find when they search for this term (note that none of the entries actually list 2027 either). Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mufeeda Thesni

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

The subject’s role as the national vice president of a state-level political party’s youth wing does not automatically meet the notability guidelines under WP:POL. Furthermore, the available coverage primarily focuses on routine updates about her new positions within the party, which is typical for politicians and thus does not fulfill the criteria for WP:GNG. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kerala. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another youth leader of a political party, akin to the Young Republicans. We are not a directory of every up and coming political party functionary. Badly fails NPOL. Bearian (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -it National level office holder[14], it clearly meets the criteria for the WP:GNG. ~ Spworld2 (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Spworld2 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete: A youth wing leader of a policil party. Easily fails GNG and NPOL policies. 202.83.51.246 (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The user with the IP address (202.83.51.246) discussed above is a first time wikipedia editor, and like other experience users, feels like WP:SOCK---- Spworld2 (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digenis Lakkoma F.C.

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

No evidence of notability and does not meet WP:V. Frost 14:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Greece. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The football club has been around since 1957? You'd think they should have a decent history, I found a mention to a previous coach on [15], however the results are pretty poor on the English google search, that's about all I saw other than one official facebook. Is anyone able to perform newspaper or Greek news sources or find anything else? I find it strange there is no history for a Greek club that has been around over 60 years. Govvy (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per same precedent of Aksarayspor. Since there is no minimum number of sources for WP:SIGCOV, it is difficult to contest the deletion. Svartner (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keys for Kids Ministries

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

Only two references, did not see anything else on Google News. There was a discussion about notability in the talk page. Doesn't meet notability standards. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was actually familiar with this organization and its Down Gilead Lane show, and I was expecting to find at least something in a reliable source -- but didn't. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The CBN article might make organization notable, but I found nothing about them outside the listed sources. Not opposed to recreation should better sources about it arise, but I think that info about this ministry would be better located in an article about Charlie VanderMeer, who has a bit more coverage about his life. ❤History Theorist❤ 05:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about VanderMeer. If someone were to create an article on him, I would support a redirect there, but until then delete is the only option. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not huge discussion, but sufficient to indicate consensus Fenix down (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Zayani

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Al-Zayani

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

Does not satisfy notability guidelines, all citations are their own websites. Archimedes157 (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. There needs to be multiple independent sources for a demonstration of notability.

UserMemer (chat) Tribs 13:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since there are multiple pages with this surname, the page could be recreated as a set index article of people with the surname.

UserMemer (chat) Tribs 13:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet WP:SIGCOV but should be recreated as a set index. मल्ल (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stafford Center, Indiana

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

Most of these "Center" places in Indiana have turned out to be real towns, but this appears to be an exception: there's just nothing substantial there, and I cannot find any real references to it. Mangoe (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any references to "Stafford Center" as a populated place in any of the old DeKalb County maps or histories I checked. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable locale. TH1980 (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheung Chun Hei

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

Playing 13 football matches in Hong Kong is a weak claim to notability. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haruki Fukushima

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

Playing 14 football matches in Japan's third league (and one in the first) is a weak claim to notability. The sources are not significant and independent enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree that he lacks notability to warrant an article. Stueybrock (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

İzel discography

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

As the article İzel (singer) is not very long why do we need this article which was tagged as unsourced years ago? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally, I would consider a merge to the artists. However, not only has the article been tagged as unsourced, but it has been completely unsourced since User:Pop izel - another red flag - created the page 15 years ago. Speficially, the sales figures would need sourcing. Therefore, there is no mergeable content. Geschichte (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to being unsourced, this discography also adds nothing that is not already seen in the basic list of albums back at the singer's article. A full discog article is unsupportable per the standards and guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is better to expand the main article. desmay (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

York Notes

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

Three and a half years after my PROD was WP:DEPRODDED, this article remains unsourced and makes no claim of notability. My WP:BEFORE search found nothing other than this exists.

Could redirect to A. Norman Jeffares? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Education, and England. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ looks like the best outcome, unless someone can find something about the series. It seems wrong that a series as extensive and widely-used as this might not qualify as notable, but even if it's notable, we can't have an article if there is nothing to write about it. The current article spends a lot of words saying very little beyond "it exists". Google searches are hampered by the quantity of sites selling the study guides, and the York notes site itself. But much to my surprise, I couldn't find any independent, reliable sources discussing their impact, history or value. The only fact I could find is Jeffares' role, so redirecting to him doesn't involve depriving our readers of any information. Elemimele (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to withdraw my redirect on account of new sources having been found by Cunard. Elemimele (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment It does seem strange that there seems to be nothing (or nothing anywhere near the top of search results) which is not self-published. In the absence of any better idea, I would go for the suggested redirect, but can't say I think its ideal.TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Leedham, Robert (1992-11-16). "Bestsellers: Study aids". The Guardian. ProQuest 293344496. Archived from the original on 2024-10-25. Retrieved 2024-10-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "This year, almost 20,000 students have each spent pounds 2.99 to acquire the York Notes study guide to Macbeth. Among the examiner-impressing gems they have picked up are ... Shakespeare dominates the York Notes top five ... Although published in this country by Longman, the York Notes series is an imprint of the Beirut-based Librairie du Liban. ... People worried about slipping standards in education will be reassured to find that the York Notes canon is still dominated by literature's big guns ... The series is edited by Professor "Derry" Jeffares of the University of Stirling. Previously he was at the University of Leeds, and many York Note authors have some connection with this Stirling-Leeds axis, either as students or lecturers. Authors get an advance of pounds 200 per book and earn royalties of 5 per cent."
2. David, Hugh (1985-05-03). "Study notes survey". The Times Educational Supplement. No. 3592. pp. 67–68. ProQuest 2196463025. Retrieved 2024-10-25 – via Internet Archive.
  See this PDF (pages 34–35 of the PDF but pages 67–68 of the magazine) for the article as well this plain text version of the magazine.
  The article notes: "... the latest batch of York Notes which brings to more than 250 the number of titles available in just that series. ... That said, it is still unfortunately possible to find one or two hack-works cobbled together apparently with no higher motive than to plug a hole in the list. The newly-published York Notes on the Selected Poems of W. H. Auden (0 582 79253 3) has a vague, prissy and rather misleading biographical introduction which hardly mentions the last 25 years of the poet's life, finds space for detailed discussion of just nine of the 100 poems in the Faber paperback collection it is designed to accompany, and in its bibliography inexplicably manages to ignore Humphrey Carpenter's definitive life of the poet. Rather better on content, the guide to the Selected Poems of Byron in the same series (0 582.79250 9) nevertheless introduces us to Ludwig von Beethoven and a Mrs Malaprop "who habitually mis-spells long words". ... Rounding off each volume is a section specifically devoted to the examination: the York Notes go to town with this and call il "Hints for Study”."
  The magazine later notes: "The arrival of a series of York Handbooks, more substantial companions to the York Notes, may render even such hasty, last-minute notes unnecessary. Preparing for Examinations in English Literature (0 582 79223 1) in particular says far more than the brief hints can even hint at; as much in fact as any teacher would. Diligent students will get even more from The English Novel (0 582 79269 X) and Studying Shakespeare (0 582 79274 6), a stimulating introduction sensibly co- authored by a teacher and an actor. There is also English Usage (0 582 79268 1), a brisk trot through English language papers which incorporates everything from spelling lists to extracts by "Some Paragons of English Prose"."
3. Less significant coverage:
  1. Forrest, Alan (1988-08-20). "Report On Careers And Courses, 6, : Your guide to study aids". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2024-10-25. Retrieved 2024-10-25.
    The article notes: "One particularly popular series is the York Notes, 300 titles giving critical introductions to books often studied. Though not specifically aimed at the GCSE student, Marland believes they are eminently suitable. They are published by Longman at 1.50 Pounds sterling."
  2. Gilbert, Francis (2013-03-01). "We could all use a little guidance. There is a plethora of study guides out there – but do they encourage in-depth learning and should you use them? Francis Gilbert reports". The Times Educational Supplement. Archived from the original on 2024-10-25. Retrieved 2024-10-25.
    The article notes: "In the UK, York Notes and Letts Revision guides dominate the market. York Notes, which used to aim its books at pupils, has expanded to include help for undergraduates and teachers, www.yorknotes.com"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow York Notes to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG and WP:HEY improvements by Cunard. ResonantDis_tortion 15:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meet notability--Moarnighar (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Roberts (political advisor)

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:V. I've removed most of the promo but what remains is riddled with citations that don't support the statement that they are meant to, or dead links. It was declined three times at AfC but moved to mainspace by author. The subject of the article is keen on self-promotion (see the "Roberts Honored with Pollie and 40 Under 40 Nominations" citation for a lovely bit of them citing themselves praising themselves) Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Oklahoma. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,

Came to page to fix a Disambiguation link. Only to find something that reads like self promotion. Was gonna give benefit of doubt so went to check inline source next to disambiguation Link for context, it's an article for medium which is WP:MEDIUM which is a self promotion article site. Skimming the Notability and Verifiability policies I agree with @Curb Safe Charmer 100%.

RCSCott91 (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NPOL and WP:NOTINHERITED. I’m confused how anyone would draft this article about a person who has done so little politically. Is this self promotion or a hatchet job? Bearian (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Newark-on-Trent#Newark Town Council. Despite two relists this was a poorly-attended debate in terms of breadth of voices, so this is less of a consensus-sponsored redirecting but rather a bold suggestion by the nominator that has had no support. Daniel (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sleaford, Newark-on-Trent

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

There is no evidence that this ward is notable. There is no evidence that a "suburb" called Sleaford exists, and it is not included in List of United Kingdom locations: Si-Sm#Sl. There are several references which appear to be fascinating books about the history of Newark's elections, but which do not appear to mention Sleaford ward. All I can find is that it exists as a ward electing one councillor to Newark Town Council. As explained in the rather confusing "Geography" section, it is not a ward for elections to the next level of government, Newark and Sherwood District: see 2023 Newark and Sherwood District Council election. There seems to be no accessible map showing the boundary of this ward. (The geog coords given lead to Bede House Lane, postcode NG24 1PY, which Mapit.com puts as being in Beacon ward for district council elections, but unfortunately Mapit.com does not mention wards at town council level).

As far as I can see, all we can verifiably say about "Seaford, Newark" is that is a ward electing one councilor to Newark Town Council, being one of 7 wards. That is not enough for a Wikipedia article.

The article Newark-on-Trent#Governance mentions the town council, stating that it has 18 councillors elected from 4 wards, with a reference to an archived 2011 source showing 5 wards. I suggest that paragraph should be updated to reflect the current situation, where there are 7 wards, perhaps showing the number of councillors per ward (ranges from 1 to 5), and that Sleaford, Newark-on-Trent (and probably the other wards) should redirect there. PamD 07:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. PamD 07:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK WP:SOFIXIT: I've updated the information about Newark Town Council (which was a red link until a few minutes ago) in Newark-on-Trent#Governance. PamD 07:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If this article survives, either as an article or a redirect, it needs to be added to Sleaford_(disambiguation). PamD 07:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I now see that the map referenced at currently ref 5, when zoomed in, shows the boundary of the ward, which appears to be the southern corner of the Bridge district council ward. But I doubt that even this is enough for an article. PamD 08:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wards have census data and may pass GEOLAND, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Ward articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 41#Wards. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preferably delete. Second choice redirect to Newark-on-Trent#Governance where there is a list of the town council wards. The only facts supported by the article's references are that it exists (or existed? - the article seems to contradict itself) as a ward and elects a single councillor to Newark Town Council (a redirect to the main article). Current reference no.3 does not verify "Sleaford" as a named suburb of Newark. Nothing else turned up in searches. Rupples (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I appreciate the complete deletion nomination but I just want to be clear on what the nominator is asking for. It sounds like it is not Deletion but a Merge/Redirect to Newark-on-Trent#Governance, is that correct?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 14 October 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) 08:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator in response to relisting comment: Redirection would be fine by me, now that I've added the list of wards to Newark-on-Trent#Newark_Town_Council (new subheading added just now too, for clarity). It should then be added to the dab page at Sleaford (disambiguation). PamD 10:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DXRV-FM and added hatnote as suggested. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXRV

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

Vague dab page. Dab pages don't work with only one page and one redirect. SBKSPP (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SBKSPP (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: edited to remove excessive text and links, it is now a reasonable dab page. PamD 07:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DXRV-FM with a hatnote {{redirect|DXRV|DXRV-TV|List of GMA Network stations}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:13, 20 October 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) 08:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested sensibly by Shhhnotsoloud. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Shhhnotsoloud. Also, I did not find any other notable subjects (unless some random, probably AI Soundcloud rapper qualifies). ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from AfD creator Honestly I'm against redirection. I'd rather have the only article move to the namespace for the sake of WP:NAMINGCONVENTION. But if you vote to redirect the dab page, the be it. SBKSPP (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DXMF-AM and added a hatnote as suggested. Owen× ☎ 13:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXMF

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

Vague dab page. Dab pages don't work with only one page and one redirect. SBKSPP (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SBKSPP (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DXMF-AM with a hatnote {{redirect|DXMF|the FM station|Prime Broadcasting Network}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:16, 20 October 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) 08:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested sensibly by Shhhnotsoloud. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Shhhnotsoloud. A quick look up brings no other topics. ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from AfD creator Honestly I'm against redirection. I'd rather have the only article move to the namespace for the sake of WP:NAMINGCONVENTION. But if you vote to redirect the dab page, the be it. SBKSPP (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DXDJ-FM and added the hatnote as suggested. Owen× ☎ 09:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXDJ

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

Vague dab page. Dab pages don't work with only one station that carries the current callsign and one station that used to carry the callsign. SBKSPP (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SBKSPP (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DXDJ-FM with hatnote {{redirect|DXDJ|the TV station|DXRS-TV}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:18, 20 October 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) 08:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested sensibly by Shhhnotsoloud. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from AfD creator Honestly I'm against redirection. I'd rather have the only article move to the namespace for the sake of WP:NAMINGCONVENTION. But if you vote to redirect the dab page, the be it. SBKSPP (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civolution

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

Both of these articles are written by then marketing director Josserand, apparently from his personal knowledge. Much of the original text seems to be entirely impossible to find sources for. Fails WP:V, WP:N and is essentially a WP:BROCHURE besides. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Netherlands, and United Kingdom. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Civolution and Teletrax articles present a dizzying stream of takeovers, divestments, etc., as do the articles on the entities to which they were previously associated. At the moment, the residues seem to sit with Kinetiq of Pennsylvania, on which there is no article here. But I am struggling to see coverage which rises above WP:CORPTRIV announcements; there needs to be something to demonstrate that the company's endeavours,under whichever ownership model, were actually notable. AllyD (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL. I’m confused by anyone who would want to promote a defunct company that did something so insignificant and apparently didn’t even make much money. Bearian (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Reddy

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. All sources provided are primary. I searched for sources with search ["Suresh Reddy" ambassador] and could not find anything indepth. LibStar (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, India, and Brazil. LibStar (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with LibStar; the cited sources are only primary, which are useless for establishing notability. Diplomats are not inherently notable and this fails both the GNG and SIGCOV criteria. GrabUp - Talk 05:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also did a lot of searching but couldn't find anything, so clearly fails WP:GNG Jannatulbaqi (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Source 1, 2, 3 (attributed twice) are primary and not secondary independent. No WP:SIGCOV on the Ambassador to pass WP:NBIO. Fails WP:GNG too. RangersRus (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would allow it to exist, but the fairly clear consensus has developed that ambassadors are no longer automatically notable. Without significant coverage, and his personal life section completely (!) unreferenced, even an ambassador from one major BRIC country to another isn’t notable. Please ping me if you rescue this. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhiraj V Sonawane

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

Prod was removed. Fails WP:BIO. No reliable sources to indicate in-depth coverage. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created the article because I believe the subject passes WP:NPROF India Today has significant coverage in reliable sources such as the India Today, Times Of india newspaper also Passes WP:BASIC. Immediately after creating the page, more references were being added nominator put AFD Tagged. NASIIR (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The India Today piece isn't about him. It's a PSA: "Disclaimer: This is a public awareness initiative by Medtronic. Views are independent views of Dr Dhiraj Sonawane, intended for general information and educational purposes only, and do not constitute any medical device." The Times of India article is about a woman receiving surgery, not about the doctor. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Prod It was removed by mistake I didn't know it was removed while adding references, you should add it again if you want. If the India Today article is read carefully, it has a picture of him as well as a regular article about him. NASIIR (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the only NPROF criteria the subject might meet is WP:NPROF#C7. No other NPROF criteria seem to be met. It might be WP:TOOSOON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyanochic (talk • contribs) 17:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I think we need more information. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkhus Rovner

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

Cannot find any books, journal articles, newspaper articles, or websites mentioning him. Only websites that did mention him are Wikipedia mirror cites. Hell, this is possibly a hoax. Roasted (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Ukraine. Roasted (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with points listed above. Multiple google searches (including with aliases) did not return any results. Sources in article do not support any of the article content (one does not exist, and one has very limited information). Wibbit23 (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep absolutely, accusations of hoax are groundless. Pinkhus Rovner played a key role in the Bolshevik movement on territory of today's Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a common oversight of AfDeers is not bothering to check the native language sources or the article creators, who are alive and well, to accuse whom of hoax is a grave disrespect. --Altenmann >talk 21:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can we have some review of sources here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - whenever a subject has a name written in Cyrillic, I always search for it under those letters: see here . Bearian (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still seeking a review of sources to see whether or not they establish GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a revolutionary, politician, member of 1st and 3rd Congress of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine. Plenty of sources listing him as member of congress.

Source: 1) Talks about last name, list people with it. Short 1 line giving name and listing him as a revolutionary. 2) Gives name, dob, deat date, arrests, political positions. 3) Big bio article. also lists sources. 4) Pavlik, I., Lifanov, V., Mychakovskaya, L. Mykolaiv: Streets tell book. Has 3 pages dedicated to his bio and part to street named after him. Also talks about his joint activities in 1918. Image of him along with other members of first congress [16]. Ceriy (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is less discussion of the sources than I'd like to see, but three weeks in there is no appetite for deletion and substantive opinions favoring keeping this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick LeBlanc

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Derrick LeBlanc (2nd nomination)

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

Nominated for deletion as my search did not yield significant coverage per WP:GNG. Most available sources come from team websites for from fan sites or blogs which WP:SPORTCRIT states is not valid. My search yielded two results that would be considered reliable secondary sources, but as WP:3REFS states in most cases, three references would be needed to establish notability. Reliable source analysis from my search:

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/kentucky/2020/01/03/kentucky-football-dl-coach-derrick-leblanc-leaving-arkansas/2809501001/

This source is from 2020 and is focused on the University of Kentucky having to fill the role of defensive line coach due to Leblanc leaving.

https://sports.yahoo.com/cardinals-hiring-dolphins-assistant-dl-061650718.html

Brief history of LeBlanc's career after being hired by the Cardinals.

As mentioned, all other found sources are either fan sites or blog sites which are not usually considered reliable sources. Other sources also include Team sites, which are not considered independent. Wibbit23 (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Louisiana. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick LeBlanc is an NFL coach, most of whom have Wikipedia profiles, especially the one's who have coached as many years as he has. The NFL is a multi-billion dollar business and the most popular sports league in the world. Thanks! TurtleTurtle00 Turtleturtle00 (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While your points on the popularity of the NFL and coaches are valid, Wikipedia does have specific guidelines for inclusion into the namespace. One such criteria is WP:GNG which states that subjects of articles must have significant, non-trivial, independent, secondary coverage. As required by AfD, I preformed a google search on the subject, and returned sources that are not able to establish notability. Blogs, fan pages, and team/NFL pages are not able to establish notability. Wibbit23 (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone recently linked this page w/ current NFL defensive line coaches, most of whom have their own pages, why them and not Derrick LeBlanc? TurtleTurtle00 Turtleturtle00 (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:3REFS is an essay, not a notability guideline, so in some cases 2 refs are enough. But this subject has more, for example here and here. Rlendog (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that it is an essay and that two can be suitable (hence "most cases"), however, I included 3REFS as the two sources I found were not enough to establish notability due to the first one focusing on the team he was leaving four years ago and how they would fill the vacant slot and the second being a very brief overview of his career. I am not able to open your proposed sources, if you could send them in alternate format that would be great. Thanks! Wibbit23 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may need access to newspapers.com, which can be done through the Wikipedia Library. Rlendog (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I thought there would be more participation on an NFL-related AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some more participation on this NFL-related AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what Rlendog presented, I found this. Cbl62 (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG per Rlendog and Cbl62's sources. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Hennessey

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The only reference in the article is Business Insider profile for Everspark, the company he founded. That source however, is just a blurb from Everspark itself. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everspark. Whpq (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Advertising, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback regarding the article. While I understand your concern about notability, I believe this page has enough reliable coverage to merit its existence on Wikipedia. The Business Insider profile provides insight into Everspark, and while it may have some promotional aspects, it serves as a starting point for understanding the company’s significance.

To strengthen the article further, I will look for additional independent sources to enhance its credibility and improve the overall tone. Your input is valuable, and I'm committed to making this page meet Wikipedia's standards. Aliumair435 (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above reply came up as 100% AI-written on gptzero.me. Left guide (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks promotional. McYeee (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Business Insider piece does not even mention Jason Hennessey, and it literally says We have been featured in various news pieces, primarily providing insight into new developments in the search engine optimization and marketing spaces (like about Google Places or the mobile wallet phenomenon, proving that source not independent abd is of zero value for establishing notability. No evidence of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. asilvering (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Breingan

AfDs for this article:

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

He's not a notable producer. This page is an absolute attack on the subject since the media links about the closure of his production company. I have been following this news on this subject and other editors. Please note this carefully. The sources in the Financial and Legal issues are only really from one news source and reporter which seems like an attack on the subject. It needs to be deleted or cleaned up. There seems to be mental stress from someone who knows the subject. It's not a neutral article the way it is worded. I thought I was helping with some of the info that comes to light but looking again it seems like a personal attack on the subject. The following source is about the closure of the production company more than the subject [17]. This url is another about the subject here, [18] but all the rest are only sources from The NZ Herald and by one single reporter for in the financial issues area. Thoughtcattle (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - the subject is clearly notable and the article is well-sourced. The nominator clearly has issues with the content, but these are best addressed by seeking consensus through the talk page, not through AfD.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Radio, Television, Management, England, New Zealand, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I agree with the above. Bduke (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was notable as a producer. Now three different sources (NZ Herald, Stuff, NZ Government Gazette) attest to his failure to pay his debts. The fact that he doesn't like this is not a reason to delete the article. Maproom (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I simply cannot see how this is an attack on him. He is notable producer. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is notable shown by the sources in use. If there are content issues, these can be cleaned up. Schwede 66 15:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Someone just came onto #wikipedia-en-help and asked us to edit the article on their behalf using much the same argument as started the AfD. I cannot say if it is the OP, but I explicitly told them we won't be trying to short-circuit this on their behalf. (I personally will not participate in this AfD due to the obvious WP:CANVASS concerns.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I advise people to check the article talk page and examine the article history and draw their own conclusions. IdiotSavant (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I’m tired of Censorship of Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is plenty of stuff there to establish notability. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He seems like a notable producer to me, as there is plenty of information in the article to establish that. In my opinion, the article simply needs to be cleaned up. TheSchollyist (talk) 08:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 India–Malta relations. ✗plicit 01:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Malta, New Delhi

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD outcome was redirect but has been recreated. This fails WP:ORG. Sources 4-9 merely confirm previous high commisioners. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, India, and Malta. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to India–Malta relations and ask for protection if this is reverted back to an article. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to India-Malta relations per above. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 14:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to India–Malta relations. RangersRus (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to India–Malta relations sensible. Bunnypranav (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Connolly (Canadian film director)

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker, not properly referencing any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers. The attempted notability claim here is that his work exists, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- we would need to see some evidence of distinction, such as notable awards and/or WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about him and his work in media and/or books. But this is referenced entirely to primary sources self-published by people or organizations directly affiliated with the statements they're referencing, which is not support for notability, and the article claims absolutely nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable without better sourcing for it than this.
Further, there are no inbound links here from any other page in Wikipedia but the disambiguation page at Bob Connolly, and this appears to be a conflict of interest as the creator (who created it in 2013 and has occasionally returned to edit the article as recently as August 2024) appears to have self-identified as Bob Connolly in past posts to Talk:Lee Aaron, but even people who do properly pass our notability and sourcing standards still aren't entitled to write or curate their own articles themselves. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and Journalism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bearcat said it well. Subject lacks independent coverage. Wikipedia is not a promotional platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Dave Explains

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

Poorly sourced article that was moved from draftspace into mainspace. A before search returns mostly sources from one site (evolution news). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Education, Science, Biology, Mathematics, California, and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The only credible source is an interview, which is not an independent source. References to significant coverage in several reliable sources completely independent of Professor Dave are required. Cullen328 (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Kablammo (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability and doesn’t meet Wp:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackesan (talk • contribs) 11:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Evolution News is a Discovery Institute rag that counts for nothing. Creationists complaining about a scientist don't contribute to that scientist's notability, unless something quite unusual happens and reliable sources actually cover the incident in depth. That said, I could be convinced of a WP:PROF#C7 pass; the evidence isn't solid so far (see for example this), but that would be the way to go. XOR'easter (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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