Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 19: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:14, 19 February 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 18	February 20 >

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 keep‎. Consensus for keep as GNG established with the addition of new sources. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScholarMate

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

Unnotable company. ~~All of the sources listed are affiliated with the site in some way.~~The first source is the company's homepage, the second is of an affiliate, while the last two are dead links. Even worser, this site has virtually no news coverage and was created by a one-purpose account. Interestingly, if you look in the article creator's talk page, it was actually speedy deleted but remade. ''Flux55'' (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The phrase Innovate Smarter in the article is a tagline from the products home page, so there is clearly some form of copypasta going on. More importantly, NN per nom MNewnham (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. ''Flux55'' (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything for this entity, there's another one with the same name using ChatGPT technology that pops up in searches. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. English-language sources:
  1. Zhang, Zitong; Patra, Braja; Yaseen, Ashraf; Zhu, Jie; Sabharwal, Rachit; Roberts, Kirk; Cao, Tru; Wu, Hulin (2023-06-04). "Scholarly recommendation systems: a literature survey". Knowledge and Information Systems. 65. Springer-Verlag London: 4446–4447. doi:10.1007/s10115-023-01901-x.
    The article notes: "ScholarMate, a social research management tool launched in 2007 was used in 4 publications. It has more than 70,000 research groups created by researchers for their own projects, collaboration, and communication. As a platform for presenting publication research outputs, ScholarMate automatically collects scholarly related information about researchers’ output from multiple online resources. These resources include multiple online databases such as Scopus, one of the largest abstract and citation databases for peer-reviewed literature, including scientific journals, books, and conference proceedings. ScholarMate uses aggregated data to provide researchers with recommendations on relevant opportunities based on their profiles."
  2. Xu, Jie; Yuan, Xiaoqun (2013-04-01). "Online scholarly publishing in China: Who? What? How?". Learned Publishing. 26 (2): 93. doi:10.1087/20130205. ISSN 0953-1513.
    The article notes: "ScholarMate (www.scholarmate.com) is another good example of dotcom companies playing a role in scolarly communication. ScholarMate is a professional research social network website whose aim is to promote research collaboration and information sharing. Inspired by Facebook and LinkedIn, ScholarMate collects personal research output through the Internet and sets up an entry of unified access to all online academic information for all users. By creating a profile page on ScholarMate, researchers can manage publications, build links with friends and colleagues, recommend funding and career opportunities, as well as disseminate reseach outputs to increase impacts and citations. Lanched in August 2012, the website now has more than 20,000 registered users and the number is increasing."
2. Chinese-language sources:
  1. Zhang, Yaokun 张耀坤; Wu, Rui 吴瑞; Wang, Chaozhou 汪朝州 (January 2022). "我国本土学术社交网络科研之友的个案分析：困境与对策" [A Case Study of the Domestic Academic Social Networking Site ScholarMate in China: Dilemma and Countermeasures] (PDF). 高校图书馆工作 [Library Work in Colleges and Universities] (in Chinese). Hunan Provincial Department of Education [zh]. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1003-7845.2022.01.009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.
    The abstract notes: "This paper conducts a case study of ScholarMate, which is the earliest and the largest academic social networking site in China. The analysis results show that ScholarMate has a relatively accurate positioning and has formed a unique business model, but its user activation has been low for a long time, suggesting that the users’ continuous use needs to be improved. Clarifying that users of academic social networking sites are motivated primarily by acquiring academic information, it defines the core value of academic social networking sites as helping to identify the most valuable content for users quickly and accurately through social relations. Based on this, corresponding countermeasures are put forward from three aspects: resources, information discovery and users."
  2. Xu, Zhimin 许志敏 (2018). "提高我国学术社交网络的国际传播能力——基于ResearchGate与"科研之友"等的比较研究" [Improving the International Communication Capabilities of China's Academic Social Networks—a Comparative Study Based on Researchgate and "Scholarmate"]. 科技与出版 [Science-Technology & Publication] (in Chinese) (7): 26–32. doi:10.16510/j.cnki.kjycb.2018.07.006. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20 – via Tsinghua University Press.
    The abstract notes: "文章选取Research Gate和我国"科研之友"等作为案例进行比较研究,发现我国学术社交网络在定位、运营与发展上存在一些问题,如缺失全球化的运营理念与发展定位;用户规模和用户的国际化程度较低且用户的黏性不够;内容生产缺乏有效的激励机制和激励手段等。针对这些问题,提出一些对策建议。"
    From Google Translate: "The article selects ResearchGate and China's "ScholarMate" as cases for comparative study and finds that there are some problems in the positioning, operation and development of China's academic social networks, such as the lack of global operation concepts and development positioning; user scale and user characteristics. The degree of internationalization is low and user stickiness is not enough; content production lacks effective incentive mechanisms and incentives. In response to these problems, some countermeasures and suggestions are put forward."
  3. Liu, Xianhong 刘先红; Li, Gang 李纲 (2016). "科研社交网络的推荐系统对比分析" [Comparative Analysis of Recommender Systems of Research Social Networking Service]. 图书情报工作 [Library and Information Service] (in Chinese). 60 (9). Chinese Academy of Sciences: 116–122. doi:10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2016.09.016.
    The abstract notes: "This paper compares the recommender systems of four research social networking services of ResearchGate, Academia, Scholarmate and Scholat, from four aspects of recommending item, recommending strategy, cold start scheme and user preference learning method. [Result/conclusion] It finds that the recommender system of research social networking service of China has a obvious gap compared with foreign counterparts in above aspects. The problems include the fewer recommending items, insufficiency recommending strategies, poor effects of cold start, and weak abilities of user preference learning. Finally, it puts forwards some measures to solve these problems."
    The article notes: "2007 年正式上线的科研之友，虽然规模要小于 ResearchGate 和 Academia，但目前注册会员也达到250万之多 ... 科研之友和学者网则是我国两个典型的科研社交网络。本文选取这4 个科研社交网络，从推荐项目、推荐策略、冷启动方案和用户偏好学习4个方面进行对比。... 我国的科研之友有一个“同行专家”推荐服务，从其提示语“根据您的个人信息推荐的专家”可以清楚地知道该服务的作用，但笔者在多个不同的时间经多次调整个人信息，推荐结果始终显示“没有符合条件的专家记录”;“发现群组”“学术期刊”“科学基金”这3 个推荐项目也存在同样的问题。这说明科研之友的推 ...""
    From Google Translate: "ScholarMate, officially launched in 2007, although smaller in scale than ResearchGate and Academia, currently has 2.5 million registered members... ScholarMate and Scholat are two typical scientific research social networks in my country. This article selects these four scientific research social networks and compares them from four aspects: recommended projects, recommendation strategies, cold start solutions and user preference learning. ... Our country's ScholarMate has a "Peer Expert" recommendation service. From its prompt "Experts recommended based on your personal information" you can clearly understand the role of this service, but the author has experienced it many times at many different times. After adjusting personal information for this time, the recommendation results always show "No qualified expert records"; the same problem also exists in the three recommended projects of "Discovery Group", "Academic Journal" and "Science Fund". This shows that the recommendation of friends of scientific research...""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ScholarMate (Chinese: 科研之友) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need assessment of whether new sources located help establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Cunard. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. 1.46.91.225 (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources provided by User:Cunard establish notability. Marquisate (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV's Naughtiest Blunders

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

Unable to find multiple non-trivial sources that show the significance of this television show, there is a small piece in the Scottish Daily Record & Sunday archived here and the rest is either routine television listings or brief mentions in articles about Steve Penk. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lawson, Mark (2000-04-16). "Going live". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
  The review notes: "That the rudeness was an illusion on that occasion sadly renders it ineligible for TV'S Naughtiest Blunders (ITV, Wednesday, 10pm), which promises "a series of four-lettered utterances from a variety of famous faces". Presented by Steve Penk (pictured), it's an adult version of Dennis Norden's It'll Be All Right On The Night shows. Like most shows featuring out-takes, it uses too loose a definition of broadcasting embarrassment. ... On TV's Naughtiest Blunders, it's amusing when Martin Clunes gets sexually explicit on This Morning With Richard & Judy because the presenters look so terrified. But news reporters swearing when taped pieces to camera go wrong is no more interesting than other workplace cursing. The most intriguing aspect of the show is that the expletives aren't bleeped."
2. Purnell, Tony (2000-12-13). "Last Night's View: ITV goes on the offensive". Daily Mirror. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
  The review notes: "Proof if proof be needed that those in power don't give a monkey's for public opinion was there for all to see in TV's Naughtiest Blunders (ITV) which was put out in the old News At Ten slot. It was crammed full of four letter words even though that sort of thing tops the list of complaints in all viewer surveys. Stars caught effing and blinding included Frank Skinner, Caroline Quentin, Amanda Holden, Keith Barron, Brian Blessed and Jim Bowen. The only interesting thing to come out of the programme was that the women were worse than the men. The show looked as if cheeky schoolboys had compiled it. There were lots of shots of animals farting, fornicating and going to the toilet."
3. "Nowhere to hide for TV stars - TV's Naughtiest Blunders ITV, 10.00pm". Daily Record. 2001-04-28. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
  The review notes: "Uncensored and unbleeped, Steve unveils TV's Naughtiest Blunders showing the clips that television's favourite actors, presenters and news reporters would rather the viewers never saw. From GMTV to CiTV, London's Burning to Animal Magic, Steve shows us the stars of the small screen getting it wrong in a programme not for the faint-hearted. ... Steve brings to TV the cheekiest and most embarrassing foul-ups from some of the country's best known celebrities. ... Standby for Barbara Windsor, Mike Reid, Amanda Holden, Gary Myers, Neil Morrissey, Martin Clunes and Eamonn Holmes as they make their naughtiest blunders in full glare of TV cameras. There's nowhere to hide for the guilty celebrities."
4. "Bleeper working overtime". Daily Record. 2000-12-09. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
  The review notes: "It will be all right on the night, or perhaps not. It's time for more outrageous out-takes and unbleeped bloopers in TV's Naughtiest Blunders 2. ... With double entendres from Ainsley Harriot's Can't Cook Won't Cook, Freudian slips from sporting legend Dickie Davies and uncontrollable giggles from Geordie duo Ant and Dec, this is most definitely the show the censors didn't get their hands on."
5. "Getting caught out being naughty". Bristol Post. 2000-04-19. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
  The review notes: "Tonight Steve takes another big stride in his burgeoning screen career by presenting an hour of outrageous out-takes and unbleeped bloopers in TV's Naughtiest Blunders. The Capital Radio disc jockey, legendary for his own on-air set-ups, sets out to bring us some of the more embarrassing foul-ups from other famous faces and shows. They include a celebrity error on This Morning with Richard and Judy , to a male streak on a mass scale at a big rugby match. It's a one-off special and there's a chunk of never before seen or heard blunders which are definitely not for the faint-hearted viewer. These clips include ones featuring Kiss Me Kate stars Caroline Quentin and Amanda Holden, some chaos on The Generation Game with Jim Davidson, and some four-lettered utterances from some of the nation's famous faces."
6. Johnson, Debra (2002-11-22). "Fox picks up Carlton clip show". Variety. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
  The article notes: "Carlton Productions’ entertainment department has been commissioned to produce three special editions of its British clip show “TV’s Naughtiest Blunders” for Fox in the U.S. ... In the U.K., the sixth edition of “TV’s Naughtiest Blunders” is now in production for ITV, along with a further special “The Naughtiest of TV’s Naughtiest Blunders.”"
7. "TV's Naughtiest Blunders". Sunday World. 2005-08-28. Retrieved 2024-02-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "Given a slightly later slot than other shows of its ilk, Neil Morrissey introduces a series of clips that claim to be too risque for young eyes. This edition's fall guys include Hollywood heartthrob George Clooney, as well as comedians Ardal O'Hanlon and Rik Mayall, singer Rod Stewart, and bloopers from the casts of Bad Girls and The League of Gentlemen."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow TV's Naughtiest Blunders to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the sources I would not say any of these make up significant coverage - these all seem to be routine descriptions of the show describing when it would be airing. Source 4 is seven sentences long. Source 3 and 5 seem to be more about Steve Penk than the show itself. Source 2 is the only one I would describe as potentially being significant. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 20:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not "routine descriptions of the show describing when it would be airing". The sources provide critical analysis of the television show. The fourth source, which provides 204 words of coverage about the show, says, "With double entendres from Ainsley Harriot's Can't Cook Won't Cook, Freudian slips from sporting legend Dickie Davies and uncontrollable giggles from Geordie duo Ant and Dec, this is most definitely the show the censors didn't get their hands on."

The second source provides critical analysis and commentary: "The only interesting thing to come out of the programme was that the women were worse than the men. The show looked as if cheeky schoolboys had compiled it. ... The funniest moment for me did not involve swearing, nudity or any kind of naughtiness, just Gary Mavers attempting to open a door and act at the same time." Cunard (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources identified by Cunard. Toughpigs (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For deeper discussion of the sources found by Cunard.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's refs. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 22:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Marks

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

Uncited for over a decade, cannot find any sources for him (not someone else with the same name). Mach61 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Mach61 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added some sources. None are SIGCOV but a newspaper article does have a small bio. He was living in Berlin by the 1980's. Someone with access to The British Newspaper Archive, German or jazz publications might be able to find something. S0091 (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. S0091 (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:HEY and WP:NBAND. I see some improvement, but as usual, I would prefer for all external links to be placed into in-line citations. Based on his international touring, he appears to be a notable musician under criteria #1 and # 4. Bearian (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gitit (software)

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

No significant and reliable coverage; fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. BilledMammal (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Turner

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

Because the article is greater than 90 days old, I'm effectively testing whether there is community consensus to draftify per WP:DRAFTIFY.

Five years ago, the article was merged into Nat Turner's slave rebellion. Talk:Nat Turner preserves the history of the merge discussion, which was closed as "consensus to merge" when there was no such consensus. There is related subsequent discussion at Talk:Nat Turner's slave rebellion. Editor LouMichel is rewriting the biographical article, which I applaud, ~~but it should be incubated in a draft space until it is ready for publication. Though I'm therefore recommending Draftify,~~ I suspect some editors will also wish to use this AfD to revisit the merge discussion. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nat Turner's slave rebellion#Turner's life with the option to WP:SIZESPLIT in the future if necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in it's current form to Nat Turner's slave rebellion, but I am in support of a page for Nat Turner himself in the future. Jebiguess (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Split: I think there are enough separate facts about the individual responsible for the famous rebellion to give him his own page. For example here. I don't know if that source meets Wikipedia's standards to be reliable. This source looks reliable. There appears to be plenty of WP:RS on Google scholar. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC) and per LouMichel. I would support a speedy close of this discussion as Keep or Split per the arguments made by Central and Adams and regular editing between the two articles takes place. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [revised 00:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)][reply]
Keep -- No one will seriously argue that Nat Turner fails the GNG, so the only argument put forth by nom is that the present article is in lousy shape. AFD, as is well known, is not cleanup, so this is not a valid criterion for deletion. Central and Adams (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: This issue is not whether Turner merits an article but that a community consensus was made three years ago to merge two articles, making Nat Turner's slave rebellion the primary article. As a result better biographical content already exists but is elsewhere. If a discussion to split the main article had been started, existing content could have been used to populate Nat Turner, resulting is a C class rather than a stub. This is about process, not the merit of the subject. Rublamb (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - That decision isn't binding on anyone now, and we're revisiting it. If the only question is whether it should still be merged that's a question for discussion on the talk page rather than at AFD. AFD is never about process. It's always about the notability (not merit) of the subject. Central and Adams (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point. I honestly do think the merger is the issue, but here wer are. Rublamb (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I came here following WP:DRAFTIFY, which suggests AfD to establish community consensus for draftification. It is an odd AfD nomination, but not inappropriate. I don't expect anyone will seriously suggest deletion here. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - IgnatiusofLondon I apologize for not having read your initial reasoning in the post. I thought it so absurd to make any argument that Nat Turner isn't notable, I responded to what I had assumed was a proposal to delete (or redirect). That said, I would still rather the article stay live and the appropriate content split back to Nat Turner. Drafts are hard to find and track, often ending up in some editor's space, making it hard to know how a phrase or deletion came into being prior to the publication of the draft.
    - I think drafts are better for subjects that are only marginally notable, especially when there is really only one editor willing to work on the content. Then when it is published, we know all of it is from that one editor from that date. I very much doubt that is the case here. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's alright; don't worry! The reason why I initially stumbled across this minefield was through new page patrol. If it were a new article, I would draftify; it isn't, so the process is AfD. It seems like I've also, in doing so, rather spotlighted the debate between editors regarding reversing the 2019 merge that had already started. I'm hoping there's enough enthusiasm, especially amid Black History Month, to get this topic the attention it deserves.
        To be honest, if I were a gambling man, I would be willing to bet that article improvements will likely make the draftification question moot by the time the AfD closes, such that the discussion solely concerns keep versus redirect (revisiting the 2019 discussion and improper closure). IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nat Turner is an incredibly important figure in American History. He was rated one of the 100 greatest African Americans in Molefi Kete Asante's well-known book. He has had numerous articles, books, and movies made about him. In fact, any in-depth discussion of US slavery and resistance to slavery will almost certainly discuss him. There are numerous articles here on rebels, such as Pemulwuy, Emile Henry, Shields Green, and countless others. Many of them are less famous than Nat Turner. Even the Spartacus article starts with "Little is known about him beyond the events of the war, and surviving historical accounts are sometimes contradictory," so being mostly known for an uprising does not mean the biographical article should be deleted.
Wikipedia's guidelines on Notability say: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." No one would argue the rebellion was not significant, and it is obvious that Nat Turner played a significant role.
Why should we have pages for biographical films about Nat Turner and not a page for the person himself? Pulitzer prize-winning books about Nat Turner have Wikipedia pages. Films that are "based on the story of Nat Turner" have pages.
I have started this article again because there was never a proper consensus on merging it into the rebellion article (suggestions for a formal "request for comment" were apparently ignored, and few editors even new the merger was occurring or had a chance to respond). The "consensus" that did supposedly occur did not properly follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines and deleted this page for a very notable historical figure. I recommend that either the previous version of this article before the merger be restored, or we Draftify it and continue working on it to create a version that is distinct from the rebellion article. LouMichel (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The prior version of the Nat Turner article was merged in Nat Turner's slave rebellion and has been improved and expanded over three years by numerous editors. It would be a step backward to simply restore the former article, and would also result in unnecessary duplicate content in Wikipedia. A better solution is to move the appropriate section from Nat Turner's slave rebellion to here. Rublamb (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then do it. This is a matter for ordinary editing.Central and Adams (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Central and Adams. I am a fan of boldly go, but this is not an ordinary sitution because there was a merger discussion, resulting turninh this article into a redirect. As indicated above by another editor, we are now revisiting the issue. Rublamb (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Rublamb If it was three years ago, then let's have an unmerge discussion. I think you can already see significant support here for it. Can you provide a link to the closed merger discussion so we don't have to look it up? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @David Tornheim: It was before my time, but here it is: Talk:Nat Turner#Proposing merger with Nat Turner’s slave rebellion. I would be more than happy to take care of the split. Rublamb (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for linking to this. That was a terrible close IMO. At the very least it should have been no consensus, but to me the oppose arguments are clearly convincing. Central and Adams (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Central and Adams How do we re-open the decision (is there a formal "unmerge" process, or is our discussion here enough)? Although I know it's not a deciding factor, it's Black History Month and deleting the page of a prominent Black historical figure (when this is often an underrepresented part of history) would be an unfortunate choice unless there's a very good reason. I was honestly shocked that Nat Turner didn't have a page. This seems like as good a time as any to revisit this. LouMichel (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - I believe the discussion is on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nat_Turner LouMichel (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with this. I am not an experienced or skilled Wikipedia editor, so I kindly request that those with the capacity help make the required changes. And I thank @Rublamb and others for their diligent work over the years on the Rebellion article. LouMichel (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't want to prejudge the AfD or box people into discussing particular questions, but looking at the comments already offered, I think it could provide some help to separate the different questions here:

Nobody is seriously suggesting the article be deleted. The subject clearly meets WP:GNG.
One question is whether Nat Turner should be a separate article ("keep") or a redirect ("redirect"/"merge") to Nat Turner's slave rebellion. As evidenced on the talk pages, the 2019 merge discussion and improper closure have caused much confusion and unsettled debate on this question. There is evidently an appetite to revisit this question.
If the article should be separate ("keep"), a follow-up question is whether it should be incubated from the article space ("draftify") while it is brought up to the necessary quality of a Wikipedia article. Per WP:DRAFTIFY and community consensus, articles that are too old should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD. This is why I have dragged this article to AfD: not to propose its deletion, but to propose its draftification. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that merging it with the other article does function as a kind of deletion. As I'm sure I've already made clear, I think there should be separate articles (Nat Turner is significant enough to justify it, and there are enough sources about him that we can have both this and one on the rebellion).

Beyond that, I'm okay with "draftifying" it (as long as it doesn't get lost in limbo for an extended period of time). But I think if someone is willing to move the relevant section/ content from the Rebellion article over to this one, as @Rublamb mentions, that may be the best choice. Then we can simply conduct further edits and expand it as needed.

Either way is fine by me; my main concern is keeping two separate articles. LouMichel (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't see any reason to draftify this. Everyone agrees that it meets the GNG, so is worthy of an article. The article's in bad shape now, but it's no different in this regard than tens of thousands of others. It can be fixed by ordinary editing and we absolutely have the power in this discussion to reverse the redirect and merge. Even an ordinary editor who was ready to write the article could do that. Central and Adams (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Test did not succeed. Improve it. Nat Turner's slave rebellion effectively gives a biography: so let's write it up properly. Keep. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Central and Adams, LouMichel, and Drmies. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per DUH, with a TROUTing to IgnatiusofLondon for good measure. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --BeLucky (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep (nominator !vote change): The article is in better shape, and the AfD discussion thusfar has suggested (i) no appetite for draftification and (ii) in my view, a perceptible consensus for a separate article ("keep" rather than "redirect"). I hope this outcome can encourage editors working on Nat Turner, and suffice to show community consensus to overturn the 2019–20 merge proposal and improper closure. Unless other editors wish to continue using this AfD to debate the 2019–20 history (which does not seem to be the way this AfD discussion has evolved), I think the AfD can be safely closed as keep. I am mindful too that it is Black History Month, and an AfD tag with no real prospect of deletion or draftification helps neither readers nor editors. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Carlo Cilli

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

None of the sources used are remotely WP:RELIABLE. TLA (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TLA (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: SEO expert, likely using Wikipedia as an SEO boost. PROMO. This is about all I found, article about why having friends is important [1], which doesn't get you notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b MNewnham (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Computing, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - every single source was a cheesy blackhat SEO blog. I've removed them, you can dig them out of the history if needed. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM and User:Largoplazo#Telltale_signs_of_candidates_for_deletion. Potentially salt. In 2024, everybody knows this is not allowed. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Dacre (knight)

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

Unsourced, and no indication of notability. This 2007 version shows 5 sources:

A user-contributed genealogy website
A site my browser security warns me away from
The contributing editor's own research
Looks good: but the Dacre mentioned was active in 1349-1350, wrong period
Dead link

An added complication is that the article on his father, Thomas Dacre, 6th Baron Dacre (1387-1458), says that his eldest son, Thomas "was living in 1453 but predeceased his father" - but this Thomas is shown with a precise death date of 15 January 1448.

The article seems to have been created from unreliable family history sources, and should have no place in our encyclopedia unless someone can find more reliable evidence of his life and dates, and of something beyond his existence which makes him notable.

I'm not a historian, just someone working on the unreferenced Cumbria articles as part of the WP:FEB24 unreferenced articles backlog drive, so someone else may well be able to improve this article. Please do so. PamD 20:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PamD 20:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Jstor has a few "name drops" of this individual, but nothing we'd consider extensive coverage. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing reliable to merge and the only clear redirect target for this term is the disambiguation page Thomas Dacre because both the 2nd and 4th Lord Dacres were knights. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. That is a G5, and since it hasn't been declined I have no hesitation in closing it as such. Star Mississippi 23:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Green Entertainment

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

Duplicate material from Green Entertainment that fails WP:NLIST an appears to be a synthesis of collected original research. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Once a CU is available, this will be G5 eligible per this. Also at ANI now. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M1NT

AfDs for this article:

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

Not much in terms of refs on the page, nothing much other than run-of-the-mill opening/closing announcements found JMWt (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and England. JMWt (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some coverage, mostly PR bits. I don't think closing an outlet in Shanghai makes them notable. The last AfD a dozen years ago doesn't seem to make sense now... Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Companies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "A-listers club together to make a mint". The Daily Telegraph. 2005-11-13. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "Investors include Steve Coogan, the comedian, Mark Blundell, the Formula 1 driver, Ilaria Bulgari, scion of the fashion empire, Robin Saunders, the banker, Sebastian Sainsbury, a member of the supermarket dynasty, and nine of London's 44 resident billionaires. The net worth of individuals on the share register is a whopping £38bn. Non-shareholding members include Val Kilmer, Liz Hurley, the actors, Shane Warne and Kevin Pietersen, the cricketers, Bruce Buck, the chairman of Chelsea Football Club, Laura Parker Bowles, the step-daughter of Prince Charles, and David Reid, the chairman of Tesco. Most are keen to invest. Prince William has also reportedly expressed an interest in investing although his exact status is a well-kept secret. And Lachlan and James Murdoch, the sons of media tycoon Rupert, are known to have made several bookings at the club."
2. He, Min 何敏 (2008-11-12). "异想天开的富豪俱乐部" [The whimsical rich club]. 名牌 [Mangazine] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24 – via Sina Corporation.
  This is an extensive profile of M1NT. The article notes: "这就是香港的M1NT俱乐部，推门进去便是高达九米的、由施华洛世奇水晶制成的枝形吊灯，如一束光的瀑布倾泄而下，昂贵的艺术品装饰了墙壁和玄关，恰到好处的Jazz，身价不菲的香槟和烈酒，还有精致美貌的女子婆娑其间……M1NT的夜晚是香港社交圈的缩影，李泽楷、霍启山、万宝宝等人都是M1NT香港的股东及会员，在M1NT开幕的时候曾经亲临现场，并且出手阔绰。显然，M1NT的“投资式富豪俱乐部”的理念更能吸引年轻的“富二代”，以李泽楷为代表的香港及大陆的名门巨贾都喜欢来这个外表低调、内里奢华，同时又能表达自己的主人身份的俱乐部。"
  From Google Translate: "This is the M1NT club in Hong Kong. When you push the door, you will see a nine-meter-high chandelier made of Swarovski crystals, pouring down like a waterfall of light. Expensive artworks decorate the walls and entrance, which is just right. Jazz, expensive champagne and spirits, as well as exquisite and beautiful women... M1NT's night is the epitome of Hong Kong's social circle. Richard Li, Eric Fok [zh], Wan Baobao [zh] and others are all shareholders and members of M1NT Hong Kong. I was there in person when M1NT opened and spent a lot of money. Obviously, M1NT's "investment-style rich club" concept is more attractive to the young "rich second generation". Rich and wealthy businessmen from Hong Kong and mainland China, represented by Richard Li, like to come to this club with a low-key appearance and luxurious interior, where they can express themselves at the same time. The owner of the club."
3. Mccord, Mark (2006-05-17). "Exclusive club would have Bond shaken and stirred". Mail & Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "As the drinks are served the back wall lifts slowly to reveal a huge aquarium dominated by a hammerhead shark. It’s no accident that the prospect of a night at M1NT, the exclusive members’ bar due to open in Hong Kong in September, sounds uncannily like a night in the high-tech lair of one of movie spy James Bond’s villains. ... With 25-million Hong Kong dollars (more than $3-million) earmarked for the project on the fringe of the downtown business district, M1NT Hong Kong promises to be the most technologically dazzling bar in Asia."
4. McCahill, Timothy (2008-04-25). "Making a M1NT in Shanghai". W. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "Three years ago, the members-only club M1NT was London’s talk of the town. Billed as the world’s first club in which members could own shares, M1NT quickly became known as the place where nouveau riche and old money rubbed shoulders, with members reportedly including Val Kilmer and Laura Parker Bowles. ... But the club persevered, relocating to Mayfair and more recently opening locations in Hong Kong and Cannes."
5. Crawford, Barclay (2009-12-19). "Conflicting versions of the reason for departure of M1NT entrepreneur". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "Nightclub entrepreneur Alistair Paton, who once battled celebrity chef Gordon Ramsey over his London establishment, has left Hong Kong for good. Paton (pictured, far right) arrived in the city and launched members club M1NT on Hollywood Road, Sheung Wan, with Andrew Lewis (also pictured) in November 2006. But those close to the club say relations between Paton and others involved in M1NT, including many members and shareholders, have soured over the months. 'It was a business decision,' one of them said."
6. Tacon, Dave (2014-06-22). "Nothing exceeds like excess". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2014-06-27. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "The Shanghai Club's modern incarnation is M1NT, launched in 2009 on the 24th floor of a building just back from the Bund. Founded by Australian former merchant banker Alistair Paton (who also opened and closed M1NT venues in London and Hong Kong under controversial circumstances), M1NT proclaimed itself "the world's first shareholder's club". ... With about 15,000 customers per week and partnerships with numerous luxury brands – the club had a formula one racing car delivered by crane to hang from its ceiling for one event – M1NT had navigated the treacherous waters of China's hospitality industry with little trouble. That was until Paton made it known that the club was for sale earlier this year."
7. Ryan, Colleen (2008-12-30). "Let's get this party started". Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "Paton has brought his formula for a private member-shareholder club, M1NT, across the South China Sea from Hong Kong and spent more than $8 million turning the top floor of a new office building near the Bund into a club the size of four soccer fields. Within a few weeks of opening, M1NT had launched the new Ferrari and showcased the Porsche 911. Both times, cars were taken by crane 24 storeys up to be displayed in the middle of the club. The Mayor of Shanghai turned up for the opening night, a rare distinction for a Western nightclub in this city. ... Paton failed with his first club in London but has been enormously successful in Hong Kong, where M1NT is Krug champagne's biggest customer in Asia."
8. Cavaliere, Patrizio (2020-08-07). "Opulent Shanghai Hotspot M1NT Mysteriously Shuts Down. Pandemic related economic challenges are a likely cause, but does this signify the end or a new beginning?". Mixmag. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "The club was originally opened by Alistair Paton in 2004, who opened the first M1NT in London's mega-affluent Knightsbridge. It was acquired by the Hong Kong-based Sino Group in 2014, who operate an array of venues across China, so there is a distinct possibility that M1NT will return in one incarnation or another."
9. Crawford, Barclay (2008-04-20). "M1NT's HK investors fret after London axe". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "M1NT London opened in a blaze of publicity in 2005, claiming a long list of celebrities as members. The original venue closed after a dispute between Mr Paton, the young Australian founder, and celebrity chef Gordon Ramsey. Hong Kong's M1NT opened in November 2006, with rumours of a prominent celebrity shareholding and membership. Mr Paton has claimed the closure of the London club was due to his landlord going into liquidation and the firm's decision to focus on Asia."
10. "Alistair Paton, making a Mint in Shanghai". Shanghai Daily. 2009-01-04. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "Paton, 30, is the driving force behind the entity's restaurant and club facilities on the 24th floor of its own branded high-rise building on Fuzhou Road. It is the newest business in a global group with operations also in Hong Kong, Cannes and Beijing. Mint Shanghai has been trading for six weeks from a standing start on May 16, which is why Paton is exhausted."
11. Wozniak, Lara (2006-05-12). "Club M1NT invites Hong Kong's hippest to invest". FinanceAsia. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "Consider the original M1NT London. Opened 18 months ago, it is billed as "the hottest and most successful private members club in London, which counts celebrities, billionaires and royalty among its members". Do a Google Search and you'll find pictures featured in OK! magazine of beautiful people. The Financial Times more sedately described it as ôAn indulgence that will make you money". The Hong Kong version is opening in September in a 4,500 square-foot venue on Hollywood Road. M1NT Hong Kong has secured a ten-year-lease on the property from Henderson Land Development who will announce the actual location in about one month. But expect 14-metre ceilings, a mezzanine and water-motifs that will feature oh-so-appropriately for Hong Kong, a shark tank. There's already a 1,200-person-long list of applicants. Most will be turned away."
12. Walsh, Dominic (2006-07-12). "Gordon Ramsay shuts club over rent arrears". The Times. Archived from the original on 2022-10-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "M1NT, the trendy Knightsbridge club that claims its membership includes “nine billionaires alongside Hollywood’s A-list”, has been abruptly shut down by Gordon Ramsay, its equally famous landlord."
13. Armistead, Louise, ed. (2006-06-18). "Prufrock: A Mint that keeps suffering losses". The Times. Archived from the original on 2022-12-12. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "Intrigued, I did some more digging and found that Paton has a reputation for exaggerating. Several people close to Mint said few of the celebs connected to the club are actually members, and the profits are smaller than reported. One insider said: “The list I saw has nobody of note. They may have been sent the marketing literature, but they didn’t join.” Separately, I’ve heard Gordon Ramsay, the feisty chef who owns the club’s leasehold, has fallen out with Paton over alleged rent arrears."
14. A new high-class club opens in Shanghai (Video journalism). Associated Press. 2015-07-21. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24 – via YouTube.
  The video notes: "This is club M1NT which recently opened in Shanghai."
15. "名家筆陣：夜場高風險" [Famous writers: high risk in nightclubs]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2014-01-30. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "那些年，一家名為M1NT的夜店在○四年於倫敦開幕。創業家Alistair Paton曾在澳洲悉尼當外匯交易員，幾經轉折變了夜總會班主，由倫敦轉戰亞洲，○六年在荷里活道街尾，一個優皮一族屋苑樓下，開了家為中環人而設的會籍制夜總會M1NT，賣點之一是內裏有個很大的鯊魚缸可供欣賞，也有貌美接待員。"
  From Google Translate: "In those years, a nightclub called M1NT opened in London in 2004. Entrepreneur Alistair Paton once worked as a foreign exchange trader in Sydney, Australia. After several twists and turns, he became a nightclub owner. He moved from London to Asia. In 2006, he opened a restaurant in Central at the end of Hollywood Road, downstairs of a Yuppie housing estate. One of the selling points of M1NT, a membership-based nightclub designed for people, is that there is a large shark tank for viewing and there is also a beautiful receptionist."
16. Greene, Lucie (2006-05-14). "Private Clubs: Cocktail empire: The British are coming. From NYC to Cannes, who better to run a venue where exclusivity is mixed with snobbery and style? Lucie Greene on the clubs luring stars to the bars". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2008-05-07. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "THE vibe: money. Indeed the whole Mint enterprise (or M1NT, as they say) is based on cash. The first 250 memberships bought shares in the club which made the buyers the owners. The same masterstroke is taking place in Hong Kong. It has been said that among the first Chelsea members there were nine billionaires. You can also expect to see lots of glam women. Well, maybe we'll join after all. They also achieved some publicity by turning down an application from the Beckhams."
17. "M1NT上海顶级私人俱乐部 (1)" [M1NT Shanghai top private club (1)]. Vogue (in Chinese). 2010-08-18. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "M1NT将这个模式在香港和戛纳成功推广，其中2006年在香港开幕的M1NT俱乐部获得了巨大成功，全年收入超过财政预期，股东分得了15％的分红，股价在第一年内上涨了80％.而2007年的M1NT戛纳俱乐部聪明地选择了在5月的戛纳电影节开幕，好莱坞明星和导演等1500多人参与了这场盛会。"
  From Google Translate: "M1NT successfully promoted this model in Hong Kong and Cannes. The M1NT club opened in Hong Kong in 2006 was a huge success. The full-year revenue exceeded financial expectations, shareholders received a 15% dividend, and the stock price rose by 80% in the first year. The 2007 M1NT Cannes Club wisely chose to open at the Cannes Film Festival in May. More than 1,500 people including Hollywood stars and directors participated in this event."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow M1NT to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, time to assess some new sources found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This AfD has been refbombed with 17 references where selected quotes are displayed but notably, omitting the parts which show that the article is either based on interview/quotations or merely commentary about the club or owner and not the company. Not a single reference meets NCORP, they are all based on regurgitating company announcements and PR. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 13:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources contain plenty of independent reporting about M1NT including critical analysis:
1. Crawford, Barclay (2007-01-07). "M1NT conditions". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-29. Retrieved 2024-02-29.
  The article contains a lot of critical coverage of M1NT. The article notes: "While the club opened to a rush of publicity in November - including speculation about possible celebrity shareholders and members - the city's sparkle may have faded slightly for the 28-year-old Australian following accusations from several of his investors he has kept them in the dark, barred a billionaire for being too old and even mistreated nine black-tipped sharks.
  The article further notes: "M1NT in Hollywood Road may have been open for only two months but already senior staff have quit, including the membership manager, lounge manager and Mr Paton's executive assistant. ... There has been a lack of big-name celebrities or prominent businessmen signing up. Staff of PCCW chairman Richard Li Tzar-kai at one time frantically hit the phones to try to get the Chinese papers to retract the claim their boss was a member. There has also been criticism of the club's feature of a tank with nine black-tipped sharks, which are subjected nightly to booming music. ... Shareholders' concern about the flow of financial information stems from the fact many are far from the wealthy elite M1NT claims to attract."
2. Armistead, Louise, ed. (2006-06-18). "Prufrock: A Mint that keeps suffering losses". The Times. Archived from the original on 2022-12-12. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article contains critical coverage of M1NT. The columnist discusses the loss of three chairmen in under a year because each was said to be "uncomfortable with Paton's management style". The columnist said Paton "needs to get on with those he hires" to manage M1NT. The columnist includes critical commentary about the club, "Intrigued, I did some more digging and found that Paton has a reputation for exaggerating. Several people close to Mint said few of the celebs connected to the club are actually members, and the profits are smaller than reported."
3. McCahill, Timothy (2008-04-25). "Making a M1NT in Shanghai". W. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article includes negative coverage of M1NT, "But not all went smoothly for M1NT and its brash young founder, former trader Alistair Paton. The club’s original location, on Sloane Street, closed in summer 2006 after the building’s landlord (a company owned by Gordon Ramsay) claimed M1NT had fallen behind on its rent. And some of the boldface names identified as M1NT members—Elizabeth Hurley among them—told the press they’d never set foot in the place."
4. Mixmag, a British magazine, discussed how the Shanghai nightclub M1NT closed. The article discusses the club's history and characteristics and notes that the club closed. The article notes, "We reached out for an interview but so far haven't received a response".
The Wikipedia article's topic is the M1NT nightclubs in London and Shanghai, not the company M1NT Global Holdings that once owned the nightclubs.
Cunard (talk) 09:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response The topic is the business, the company, and the topic is described about it being a nightclub business. You're familiar with GNG/NCORP requirements already. Looking at the references you've listed just now:

South China Morning Post article relies entirely on information provided by Alistair Paton and what he refers to as a "whispering campaign" by anonymous sources and town gossip and contains next to zero information about the company and certainly nothing that can be considered as in-depth. The "critical coverage" you're referring to in the article concerns, for the most part, the gossip/rumours about Mr. Paton and elements of the club. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
Times article is a total of 10 sentences and is also relying on unidentified "moles" and is nothing but gossip. This is not in-depth information or any type of analysis for the purposes of establishing notability, fails NCORP and ORGIND
W Magazine reference is also only 10 sentences and is also mostly gossip about members and reasons for relocation and relies on quotes from Paton. Not in-depth, not about the company, also fails NCORP.
Mixmag reference is yet another 10 sentence piece, mostly speculation about why the Shanghai club closed. There is no in-depth information on the company, no analysis/fact checking/whatever and is useless for the purposes of establishing notability. Fails CORPDEPTH.

"Coverage" is not a criteria for establishing notability, nor mentions in gossip columns, nor articles based on unidentified "moles" nor articles regurgitating Mr. Paton. HighKing 12:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you love WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The sources above that found by Cunard are really sinificant sources contain plenty of independent reporting about the subject. How much do you need. 1.46.91.225 (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per sources found by respected editor Cunard. No matter how WP:IDONTLIKE (Redacted) here. I choose you keep. Thanks 1.46.91.225 (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your contributions to topics at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China, including your detailed research at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liuyang fireworks. Regarding this AfD, you have made strong arguments about how the sources are significant and independent. I recommend focusing on discussing the sources instead of editors since the closer will give sourcing-based arguments much greater weight. Cunard (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources notes: "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." The sources I quoted above are not "gossip". They show "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking". That the articles include quotations from people affiliated with M1NT does not render the entire articles non-independent. There is enough independent research and analysis to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant sources.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience notes: "The source's audience must also be considered. Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability."
The M1NT nightclubs in Hong Kong, London, and Shanghai received international coverage:
1. Australia: Australian Financial Review and The Sydney Morning Herald
2. China: Shanghai Daily, Vogue Chinese, and 名牌 [Mangazine]
  - Hong Kong: FinanceAsia, Oriental Daily News, and South China Morning Post
3. South Africa: Mail & Guardian
4. United Kingdom: The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, Mixmag, and The Times
5. United States: Associated Press and W
Non-notable nightclubs do not receive significant coverage in five countries.

The sources were published in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2020. Non-notable nightclubs do not receive sustained significant coverage over a period of 15 years.

Cunard (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In order to meet the criteria for establishing notability, the *topic company* must be the subject of in-depth reporting. The *topic company* is not any of the nightclubs. None of the references pointed out by Cunard meets the requirements as set out in GNG/WP:NCORP for the simple reasons that they're either not about the topic company, or they are unsubstantiated rumours or they rely on information provided by the people connected with the company. This is very obvious to anyone who reads any of the references. Notability is not derived from a quantity of poor gossip-driven coverage over a sustained period of time. HighKing 18:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Well said!! Who care? 1.46.91.225 (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:18, 12 March 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) 02:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy business opens, then closes during the pandemic. Initial burst of coverage, then they closed. I don't see long-term notability, sourcing is mostly primary as above, or non-notable business things. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far, leaning towards delete. Seems to be a flash in the pan, with only rumors and primary info serving as sources. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are publications from five countries. The sources were published in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2020. This is over a period of 15 years. How is this "a flash in the plan"? How is this not "long-term notability"? Cunard (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As said by @HighKing, the sources you provided are either not about their company, but rather their clubs, or about rumors. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: in my analysis of the sources presented, I don't think this meets the the notability threshold for WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. I'm relying on guidance from WP:Identifying and using primary sources and I'd want to point to § Examples of news reports as primary sources. Given the coverage and the over-reliance on interviews or simple coverage of business events as oppose to the business itself in-depth vs the location in others, put together, I don't think this passes muster. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 15:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages in Potiskum

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

Poorly sourced and overly narrow list of debatable accuracy. This is stated as a list of villages in a specific area, but Potiskum's article describes it as a city, not a region, and cities normally contain neighbourhoods rather than "villages" -- and even if "villages" were actually the appropriate designation here, it would still be far from clear that we actually needed a standalone list of them, as a separate page from Potiskum's main article, instead of just naming them in Potiskum's main article.
The sole source here, further, is a generic postal code directory which serves only to confirm that all of the places listed here have the same postal code across the board, while utterly failing to clarify the matter of whether these are really "villages" or "neighbourhoods", and thus doesn't constitute proof that this article needs to stand separately from Potiskum as a whole. Apart from this, all other Category:Lists of villages in Nigeria are organized at the state level, with no other lists of "villages in specific city" existing at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Nigeria. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero bluelinks, redundant to an entry in List of villages in Yobe State. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notable entries. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Barats and Bereta. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Bereta

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

Redirect to Barats and Bereta. There are no reliable sources talking about this person outside the context of the show he was a part of. This page was already redirecting to there before, but someone decided to remove the redirect. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Internet, and United States of America. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, California, Montana, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Barats and Bereta seems to be notable, so it's reasonable. Better Nuncio (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barats and Bereta, isn't notabale enough for a separate article. Suonii180 (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Allegrezza

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

No coverage in reliable sources, no sign of any award that would make him notable as an author. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Authors, Poetry, United States of America, and Indiana. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Minimal coverage found [2] and [3]. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Coverage of subject showing notability is sparse. Therefore, this lacks reliable sources to show notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that this does not establish notablilty. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus that the sources brought by Toughpigs are not ideal, but are enough. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Dart Yacht Club

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

No refs on the page for many years. One would think that sources might exist for a club of this age, but I'm not seeing anything which could be added JMWt (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There's a whole series of these Royal Thames Yacht Club,Royal Southampton Yacht Club etc that are barely more than stubs but all have 100 years of history. There does seem to be secondary sources but for the Royal Dart, I had to go 25 pages deep on Bing to find anything. MNewnham (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. If there are no sources to support the notability of any article then it should be nominated for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have nominated Royal Southampton for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Southampton Yacht Club. AusLondonder (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to pass WP:NORG with independent significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 00:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yacht clubs do not get a free pass from notability requirements set out at WP:ORGCRIT, namely having received "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Appears to have been unsourced for nearly 20 years, an indication perhaps of the lack of available sources. AusLondonder (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any yacht club with the "royal" prefix is likely to be notable. There aren't that many of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately simply having royal in your name does not exempt you from the notability requirements. Surprised an editor of your experience would think so. AusLondonder (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's why the club has "royal" in its name. It's not just adopted because they felt like it. It's been awarded by the sovereign. That means something. Surprised you wouldn't know that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see quite a bit of coverage in newspapers over the decades. "Luxury look for Royal Dart Yacht Club H.Q." (Herald Express, April 1974), "Yachtsmen aim to popularise the Dart" (Herald Express, Feb 1952), "Royal Dart Club innovations" (Western Morning News, May 1932), "Royal Dart Yacht Club sails to a plush new era" (Herald Express, Nov 1991), "Ocean races sprang from Royal Dart Yacht Club's coastal events" (Western Morning News, Jan 1950). Toughpigs (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the sources IDed by Toughpigs
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added the newspapers refs found by Toughpigs. This establishes half a century of solid SIGCOV in mainstream secondary sources. JMWt, Reywas92, AusLondonder: can you please give this a second look? Thanks! Owen× ☎ 16:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. I could quibble with the quality of some of those (one appears to be reworded minutes of an AGM or EGM) I can agree that at least two are substantial coverage. JMWt (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references added by Toughpigs. Some are better than others, but certainly enough SIGCOV can be pieced together to establish notability per GNG. Frank Anchor 14:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarity Party Youth League

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

Doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG, no non-wiki mentions online, no mentions in newspaper archives even in relation to parent party. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we almost always delete the stubs of youth arms of minor parties. Bearian (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Socialists (Sweden, 1987)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NORG, no mention in indexed newspaper archive. No mentions online, only mention of predecessor is an article on marxistarkiv.se which doesn't even mention it by name. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable, no sources — Czello ^(music) 21:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we almost always delete the stubs of very small, minor parties. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yusif Mammadaliyev (disambiguation)

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

There are only 2 entries and there's a hatnote on Yusif Mammadaliyev linking to the village. Leschnei (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Leschnei (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary. Geschichte (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David N. Feldman

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

Fails WP:GNG. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Law, United States of America, and New York. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't found anything more than generic author biographies or primary sources. Shaws username . talk . 19:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)m[reply]
Delete An author of specialist accounting books from a decade ago, but nothing since then. No secondaries at all MNewnham (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one ref, which does not to even mention him. Appears to be a case of WP:NOTRESUME. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Agar

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

There are no reliable sources talking about this person in any significant depth. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Politics, and Canada. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Illinois, Missouri, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The National Post reference, already in the article, is detailed and significant. I've fixed the link, but it should have popped in a Proquest search. There is a LOT of mentions of him as a key player during Mayor Rob Ford's drug and sex scandals, as Ford would appear repeatedly, often exclusively, and sometimes even sober, on Agar's show. Also in the Tuggs scandal, as reported nationally in the Globe and Mail. Nfitz (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I know of him, but can't find much of anything about him. [4] is confirmation of his radio show. He's been sued for defamation a few times, but that doesn't make him notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nfitz' refs. As to Oaktree b's comment about defamation suits: I think they belong here if, but only if, he lost a suit, had to retract his comments or to apologize. This is because any valid defamation accusations speak to his reliability as a broadcaster, a salient issue in his field. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gas pipe clarinet

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

(declined prod) Real term, but without enough coverage to be expanded beyond a dictionary definition. Mach61 (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mach61 (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd have thought there was coverage and detail of this term, but I'm not seeing it. JMWt (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find much beyond what are name drops [5] [6], simply using the term. DICDEF applies. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 04:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Filion

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

Please delete this per WP:BLPCRIME, a minor accused but not convicted and not known otherwise. Fram (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Florida. Fram (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make this article but I was going to make one on the same topic at Draft:Torswats, but alas I am extremely lazy and was beaten to the punch. Would that still be okay? I agree the one as is has problems. Shouldn't be focused on him, should be on the service PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW Torswats itself is 100% notable. Gotta be careful about the BLP stuff until he's convicted though. Also he was charged as an adult. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram any issue with an article on Torswats (the swatting service) and not Filion? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't an issue, I can write the Torswats article fast and then redirect his name into it without mentioning it until he's convicted. Relatively few of the sources name him anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Would more than likely be notable once convicted, but until then, not really much for notability. Perhaps TOOSOON Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, from what the sources say he is not the only person behind "Torswats", he is the main one. It is implied he had affiliates. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also I agree with draftify if my proposal above isn't accepted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree. But I would consider @PARAKANYAA's request and redirect "Alan Filion" to Torswats if it is ever moved to articlespace.

Best, Danzigmusicfan1 (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If an article is to be created about the pay-for-swatting incidents it should not be a BLP of a previously unknown minor with his mugshot before conviction. The current article raises ethical issues and it should not be a BLP. See WP:BLP1E. Per WP:BLPCRIME 'Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures...editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."

AusLondonder (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only sources we have for the subject being Torswats all fail BLPCRIME, and if the subject isn't Torswats they are a non-notable minor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lucky Luke albums

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

~~Entirely plot summary, no indication of notability. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lucky Luke is plainly notable. Merging this into the main page would result in a huge amount of clutter. It needs editing, sourcing etc, etc but that's cleanup, not AfD. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; note that there's an omnibus merge in progress (see Talk:List of Lucky Luke albums#Created as per discussion at AfD), merging the even-worse individual articles to this page. I suggest a waiting until the merges are done (which should remove 20-or-so weak articles), consolidating what's there into one place where it can be improved. Note that the merge proposal itself arose from an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Collines noires, so I think that it's best to let the consequence of that AfD play out first. Klbrain (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a list page, this falls under WP:NLIST, which says, "a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Is the nominator's argument that there are no RS that discuss Lucky Luke as a whole? If that's the case, that seems trivial to establish. I agree with Klbrain that the merge should be completed, and then this article can be improved. Toughpigs (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close as too soon, I don't know how I missed the merge tag. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sober & Lonely Institute for Contemporary Art

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

The organisation appears to be a hoax (or a conceptual art project). Nearly all of the references are either deadlinks or do not mention the subject. The "official" website leads to an online gambling site. Both of the individuals mentioned appear to be (non WP:N) artists. Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Organizations. Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has been tagged for notability for ten years. WP:NCORP, WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST fail. Netherzone (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wix site, a tumblr blog and not really much else for this "institute" found. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The people mentioned in the article appear to be the artists Dr Robyn Cook and Lauren von Gogh. Whether either meets WP:BIO criteria in their own right (in any context and enough to merit a stand-alone article), I can't say, however, the Sober & Lonely Institute for Contemporary Art (abbreviated as S&L by Dr Cook in the above) does not appear to pass any WP:N criteria, and I stand by the AfD nomination. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the current domain is a site about online gambling that dates back to 2021. As recently as 2020, www.soberandlonely.org was a broken link. This article dates back to 2014. So in addition to notability concerns, this organization appears to be abandoned. Crystalholm (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Nalee

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

WP:BLP of an actress, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to have articles just because the article lists acting roles, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them and their performances -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source directory entries that aren't support for notability at all, with no evidence whatsoever shown of any GNG-building media coverage about her career, and even the roles themselves are virtually all supporting or bit parts rather than "major" roles.
Further, she's so poorly sourceable that the article has bounced all over the place over its three years of existence, as editors have repeatedly disputed whether she's American, Canadian or South African by nationality without ever showing a shred of sourcing for any of those claims — even her birthplace has been editwarred between Durban ZA and Sheridan WY without ever properly sourcing either of those things, and while the article has never claimed that she was born in Canada there's been an unverified assumption that she must be Canadian because her earliest listed film and television roles were all in Canadian productions that would be profoundly unlikely to take on the expense of importing a foreign actress just for a tiny bit part. (That can happen for a leading role, but not for one five-minute scene as a waitress.)
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to get over GNG on her sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, South Africa, Canada, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Mashed potato lady" in a Muppets movie isn't quite what we're looking for here... I don't see any sources talking about her. Even the Littlest Hobo part was a bit part... Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davie Armour

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

Fails GNG with a lack of SIGCOV. Dougal18 (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. AllyD (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you sure? something behind this paywall. picking up injury after injury...? Played in the Scottish League semi final, [7], A couple of hits in the Scottish press? Not sure, but it's possible there is enough for basic GNG with a newspaper search. I am willing to have faith on the amount of football he has played to be GNG worthy. Govvy (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In rangersreview he is briefly mentioned. The story about Neilston is a different Davie Armour. I looked in the archives and only found mentions in match reports. Dougal18 (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case, this is confusing to any editor (it was to me), I closed this AFD with a "Delete" closure and then an article about a different person with the same name was moved to this page title. Then THAT article was nominated for deletion. So, this AFD was closed properly and there is a third AFD about a subject with this name that was just started today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Gupta

AfDs for this article:

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

The cartoonist does not have any significant coverage. No indication of notability, fails WP:GNG. And now it lacks WP:SIGCOV. The first nomination is so old.XpediaF1 (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. XpediaF1 (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Evaluation showed that one of the source is a blog, cuttingchai.com and this fails reliability. Two other sources simply have reference about the subject, belittling the politicians on the anniversary of attack on Indian Parliament. That's about it. There is no significant coverage on the subject itself, notable enough to have an article of its own. RangersRus (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find any significant coverage that justify subject's notability. He seems notable only for a minor old event held a decade ago. Macbeejack ☎ 12:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aksyon JournalisMO

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 14:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Philippines. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note we also have a related article on later Pilipinas News, notability similarity unknown. IgelRM (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BEFORE search found no reliable and significant coverage, so this fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I also think this article has been given several chances for improvement. --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dobrovlyany

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

The subject of this article lack significant coverage in reliable sources, with only one primary source being cited, while I haven't been able to find any mention of it in my other sources. Not only that, but this article is plagiarising the one source it does cite: the body of the article is ripped almost word-for-word from page 236 of Viktor Bilash's book. On top of that, the title of this article isn't accurate at all: nowhere in the cited source nor in the article does it claim that this took place in "Doborvlyany" (the only towns by this name are entirely located in the far west of Ukraine), it says it took place around Yanisol. This article is broken on so many levels, from factual inaccuracy to plagiarism to notability, I think it needs to be deleted ASAP. Grnrchst (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Grnrchst (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thought I'd should include text from Bilash's book (translated from Russian) for the sake of demonstrating the plagiarism:

We had to eliminate Shkuro's corps in our rear. The 13th Army did not have a strong fist, and Shkuro occupied the Hryshyne district in the rear of the 13th Army with impunity. Then Shkuro turned from Hryshyne to our rear. Everything had to be sacrificed to save the front. And the headquarters of the 2nd Brigade of the Rebel Division immediately threw the 9th Greek Regiment, withdrawn from the village of Beshev, and the 12th Cavalry Regiment towards the White troops that had broken through.

On 21 May, they met in the village of Yanisol on the Mokri Yaly River. The fate of the front depended on the outcome of the battle, so our commanders paid special attention to the manoeuvring and fire of the regiment. It must be said that the 9th Regiment consisted mainly of Greeks from the Yanisol district, where the Shkurovtsy had managed to massacre their relatives and Soviets. Guided by a sense of revenge, they pounced on Yanisol like lions, dragging Cossacks out of their houses into the street and shooting them.

But the hour was not good. From the direction of the villages of Komar, Konstantin and Bagatyr, new regiments of Shkuro appeared. Naturally the forces were not equal, and in addition there was a lack of ammunition. However, the regiment fought fiercely for a whole day, and at the end could not withstand and began to retreat. The Shkurovtsy were attacking, our cavalry regiment was counterattacking. Our cavalry regiment counterattacked, giving the infantry regiment a chance to retreat to Kermenchik.

The insurgents defended their families, their huts, were unanimous, as the units consisted of fellow villagers. There were no cowards. And the fighting was terrible. There were no wounded or prisoners.

The regimental commander Morozov was cut down, and with him lay down and all six hundred cavalrymen. The infantry, exhausted, having used up their cartridges, parried with bayonets, until at last, at the village of Kermenchik. Kermenchik was not surrounded and completely cut down. Only Kompolka and the rest of 400 men managed to escape and only they survived, all the others were killed.

So our two regiments were gone. The Shkurovtsy, having suffered serious losses, slowed down and apparently rested in order to attack again.

All that has really been changed is the perspective, from Bilash's first person account to a deceptive third person perspective. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in addition to nom's arguments, checking the contributions of the creator of the article, it gives me the impression that some things are probably wrong with their contributions. Tehonk (talk) 09:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 03:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Banjar Union

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. A local football club. North8000 (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable amateur team MNewnham (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe @Das osmnezz know something about this team. Svartner (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @Svartner:, @GiantSnowman:, One simple google search shows that this club gets lots of coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources in particular? Result 2 is Instagram... Giant Snowman 19:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persiyali Yalimo

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

Reviewed during NPP. Local football club. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. North8000 (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe @Das osmnezz know something about this team. Svartner (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shu Shine F.C.

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. A defunct local football club. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. National, not local. The club was promoted to the Super League in 1992 and after that was among the founders of the Zimbabwe Premier Soccer League in 1993. We need topics like this from Zimbabwe. Sourcing will be limited to retrospects such as the ones already in the article, but they are bit thin, especially the Sunday Mail. Geschichte (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Top flight Zimbabwean team from pre internet era that has some online sources in the article and definotly has olffinr ones. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: Pinging per your request. SportingFlyer T·C 09:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – I understand the limitations that exist in finding good sources about African football, but the article itself doesn't add anything. A list of Zimbabwean football clubs, based on the source "Zimbabwe's football cemetery" for example, would be more appropriate. Svartner (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A top-flight team (and thus not "local") with coverage from the pre-internet age. I'm not sure what the article does beyond confirming its one-time existence, but I think it should stay, although barely. Anwegmann (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Zimbabwe, in which this club is mentioned. Fails GNG due to lack of SIGCOV. Frank Anchor 19:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to weak keep per the sources presented by SportingFlyer, which establish notability. Frank Anchor 00:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of football clubs in Zimbabwe.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poor article, notable football club. This is routine coverage from their 1993 season, showing there's also more out there - also tells us which stadium they played in. This article on an old player notes he was their coach. This article is an interview with a player who talked about how he got them promoted to the first division. I can't read this article due to a paywall but there's at least a mention there. Via Google books, in 1991, Horizon wrote an article about how Shu-Shine were promoted, about their first game, and about their sponsorship, but I can't get the link to work. There's enough here for a stub article, and it's at least implied that this team got pre-internet coverage in the early 1990s. SportingFlyer T·C 21:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was closed as a redirect by a non-administrator who reverted their close when I asked for this to be draftifyed, it appears as if it is still a redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not implying an answer to this question about those sources, but as a side note the criteria isn't that there are facts that can be pieced together from numerous places to create the start of an article. It's that there is in depth coverage of the subject in a couple of articles. (maybe one would be enough) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware. The interview with Tavaka Gumbo clearly talks about the club's glory years. I can only access a small part of the Horizon article, but it also clearly talks about the club from the time they were in the top flight, including a page header discussing their promotion. I think WP:GNG is likely satisfied on those alone. The routine coverage also demonstrates this was a league - the most important in the country! - which would have been covered in newspapers during the time Shu-Shine were in the top flight. Top flight teams are generally but not necessarily always notable. This one seems like it has been significantly covered even though it would have been all pre-internet. SportingFlyer T·C 22:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Liz got to it and it's back to normal now. -- asilvering (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Yes, the closure was reverted and the changes to the article as well. This was not a good discussion for an NAC closure as opinion is divided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage, no wp:rs. QueerEcofeminist🌈 03:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with any of the recently posted links? SportingFlyer T·C 09:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a flag, I've completely rewritten the article. I obviously think it meets WP:GNG... SportingFlyer T·C 09:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is basically guaranteed that in any country with substantial media like Zimbabwe (dozens of different newspapers), top-tier teams in the country's most prominent sport and league will receive significant coverage. We do not have access to sources of the time; but SportingFlyer has still managed to perform a decent expansion of the article with modern-day sources, which only further indicates more sources that exist from the past. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Beanie.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 20:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Geschichte (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer detailed analysis. Lokotim (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

It is notable that F.C. has left discernible footprints on Google, as evidenced by available information. Their players were acknowledged as Soccer Stars of the Year. It should be noted that not every country enjoyed international coverage during their era, unlike the extensive coverage available today. DIV IN E 05:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goyang Happiness FC

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. A defunct local football club that existed for about 1 year. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, especially in light of its short duration. I don't speak Korean, so am not best positioned to find additional sources, but did not find significant coverage during my limited search. Also, the second source in the article is arguably a cursory mention. Arcendeight (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep, in light of sources later in the discussion. I would ask, though, that these sources be included in the article as appropriate, as its in a sorry state now. Arcendeight (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I may not fix up the article. To-do list is long (can see it on my user page) and this is very low impact topic. I did copy paste the links onto the article's talk page for future editors though toobigtokale (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A team Goyang KH won the 2022 K4 League and bowed out of the 2023 K4 League, and Goyang is mentioned at both those pages, so perhaps a redirect to 2022 K4 League. Geschichte (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman, pinging as requested on account of latest mention of 9 Korean sources by @Toobigtokale. Arcendeight (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below, AGFing they show SIGCOV as suggested. Giant Snowman 21:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable coverage in the Korean language. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] toobigtokale (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per @toobigtokale. Svartner (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus to keep per WP:NPLACE. Article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion (WP:HEY). (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 02:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Villieria

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. Clearly fails GNG. Regarding SNG, there is no evidence (including in a search I made) that it meets the SNG. Appears to be just a census tract and is actually Pretoria North8000 (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you said "is actually Pretoria", I think you meant to say "is actually a suburb of Pretoria". GeographicAccountant (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I could find anything that says that it is a suburb of Pretoria (I.E. is actually a village/town etc. ) I would not have nominated. I meant that it appears to be IN/ a part of Pretoria, not a suburb of it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "suburb" is a section of a town/city here. It is not a town itself. Saying "it is a suburb of Pretoria" & "it is a part of Pretoria" is the same thing here. Sincerely, GeographicAccountant (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we are using different meanings of "suburb". I meant "suburb" in the typical USA context, which is a separate town/village with it's own government and which is not legally a part of the city which it is a suburb to. And to say that from the research I did, it appears that Villieria is not that....that it is legally a part of the city of Pretoria. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article Suburb#Australia, New_Zealand,_and South_Africa covers the meaning of the term in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, and suburbs would generally meet the criteria in WP:NPLACE in each of those countries. Park3r (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's a neighborhood in NE Pretoria, if you believe GMaps (the coords in the article go to dead center Pretoria). I couldn't find anything except real estate ads and clickbait, or routine listings. Mangoe (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:NPLACE. It is a a populated, legally recognized place, and a suburb of Pretoria as described in multiple WP:RS [17][18][19][20], with a population of 14,000 people in the 2011 census[21]. Lots of references on Google Books, it has a primary school called Laerskool Villieria (Villieria Primary School) [22]. It has a police station called the Villieria Police Station [23] [24] Google Maps clearly shows the place exists with defined boundaries, doesn't point to the "dead Centre Pretoria", and Google Street View shows the school in the suburb [25]. There are a numerous references to the place in legal (Government Gazette) and other publications in Google Books. I'm quite surprised that a WP:BEFORE didn't turn any of this up. Here's a street sign that shows the entrance to the suburb on Google Street View[26] Park3r (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In South Africa, a "suburb" is a section of a town or city (it is not a town or city itself) & since this is a South African Article, this is the definition we use here, as stated in my above reply to the nominator. As Park3r has stated above, Villieria is indeed one of the many suburbs that make up the city of Pretoria & it is a legally recognized place. I see the article has also been improved a lot since this AFD was announced & taking that into account, I vote for it to stay on Wikipedia.

GeographicAccountant (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to have been significnatly WP:HEYed since this AfD was started, easily passes GNG, nice work by Uncle G. SportingFlyer T·C 19:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow, what a lot of good work! With that amount of great sourced content, I'm in favor of keep whether it be via wp:IAR or practical edge case or GNG or ngeo or whatever. I'm not withdrawing the nomination, I would still like this to be decided. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't withdraw it since there's still a delete !vote, but why wouldn't you if you had the chance? SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for Mospyne

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

This is a recreation of an article that previously existed on the Battle of Mospyne, which was already merged and redirected to Mospyne due to a lack of significant coverage by reliable sources.[27] This version is an almost identical translation of the Ukrainian Wikipedia article uk:Бій під Моспиним, albeit with less attention given to the sourcing, some examples of poor translation and even some factual errors. As this isn't substantially different from the earlier (now merged and redirected) article, and I'd argue even represents a downgrade in quality, I'm nominating this article for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Grnrchst (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom's arguments. Tehonk (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Maesycwmmer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maesycwmmer F.C.

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

Non-notable football club. SlimyGecko7 (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maesycwmmer. Giant Snowman 19:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. The team is mentioned at the target page. Geschichte (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 03:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shan Lie

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

I think this is a case of WP:BLP1E, as the subject would be not notable (just a province-level official, certainly fails WP:POLITICIAN) without the incident about his child.

Furthermore, in the article, we only have two sources about the strained relationship between the subject and his child. One is reported by RFA (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 333#RfC: Radio Free Asia (RFA), and another is from a news aggregator. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and China. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted your concerns regarding WP:BLP1E and the controversy surrounding the official's child. While he may not have a high profile in politics, serving as a provincial propaganda department head, it doesn't necessarily violate Wikipedia's notability standards. Perhaps we can delve deeper into his responsibilities and impact in the propaganda field to assess whether he meets the criteria.

Regarding the controversy, I acknowledge the limited sources, with one being from RFA. I will make it explicit in the article and indicate the sources of the reports for transparency. Additionally, I'll search for other reliable sources to supplement the information gap, enhancing the comprehensiveness and reliability of the article. Please elaborate further on your concerns about notability standards and provide any additional information so that I can better address your requests.Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzt0208042508415531 tw, thanks for your attention. I might be in the wrong here, as the official does have a province-wide office, and thus could be presumed to be notable by WP:POLITICIAN. I am not sure, as he only holds the position of the vice bureau head and an inspector, not the bureau head. More comments are welcome.

Moreover, satisfying WP:POLITICAN does not necessarily mean we could have an article about the subject. To quote from WP:Notability (people), meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. We should have a closer look at the WP:General Notability Guideline (GNG).

To quote from GNG, we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Let's look at the sources in the article that talks about the subject's public office.

"政務公開". 浙江省人民政府 – this is a primary source from the government of Zhejiang, not a secondary source
"單烈". 浙江省廣播電視局. – trivial profile page that only says about the subject's gender, ethnicity, age, and education
"浙江省拟提拔任用省管领导干部任前公示通告". 中國共產黨新聞網 – this is a WP:Routine coverage (publicizing candidates of public offices) with trivial mention
"浙江任免华宣飞、陆伟利、姚昭晖、徐建刚、凌云、金伯中等职务". 中國經濟網 – one-line trivial mention
海外網 (2021-07-21). "浙江省庆祝建党百年国际传播大型融媒系列活动启动仪式在嘉兴举行". 新浪網 – mentions the subject's name only twice, and the subject is not the focus of the article
"浙江广电局党组书记沈铭权：全力夺取广播电视网络视听工作高分报表". 鳳凰網浙江 – this only gives a trivial mention of the subject in the first paragraph only
"浙江省人民政府关于章朝平等职务任免的通知". – a one-line mention from a primary, governmental source

I hope you understand my point that these sources do not meet Wikipedia's standards. I also did a little bit of searching and could not find any significant coverage. Without the controversy, I am afraid that the subject will not pass the general notability guideline. Even if you find reliable sources for the controversy, the situation would become like BLP1E and is still concerning. Many thanks. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA itself is not necessarily a bad source–but I am also wary if only RFA talks about the controversy, as RFA could have a bias on LGBT issues in mainland China. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your analysis, this article focuses on the biography of an official, even excluding controversial events, these sources are sufficient to prove the validity of the information, and the space itself is very small.What's more, if you take back of the word "certainly", it will be better.The article did not mention too many details of the dispute because I asked the party concerned and he could not produce direct evidence. But according to the media, it is certain that his eldest daughter was harmed. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, his controversy and influence are more than these, but limited by the biographical policy of the living, there is no reliable source, so he did not write it. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzt0208042508415531 tw, I am happy to take back the word "certainly". In my second response I have acknowledged that I might be in the wrong here, as the official does have a province-wide office, and thus could be presumed to be notable by WP:POLITICIAN.

A few more things:

"I asked the party concerned and he could not produce direct evidence." The party concerned is an unpublished source and should not be used for sources. We should only limit the discussion to the published sources.

As a side note, do you have a WP:conflict of interest to the subject or anyone involved in this article, since you have contact with "the party concerned"? If yes, I encourage you to declare it.

"these sources are sufficient to prove the validity of the information". You are correct that these sources are true, and I don't doubt that. Validity is not the issue here, it's notability. I might have not stressed this point clearly in my previous response, and I am sorry if that causes any confusion.

We create a Wiki article if there is enough notability. Trivial, marginal mentions do not constitute notability. Simply being a province-level official also does not automatically constitute notability. I have analysed the sources in the article to show that these sources don't show significant coverage of the subject, and thus do not contribute to the notability.

Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's no use talking about attention with me. I just interviewed the client. Can you help modify the internal link?Good Luck. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzt0208042508415531 tw, by using the word "client", are you saying you are a WP:paid editor? If so, you have a heavy conflict of interest and are discouraged from editing the article directly, until you disclose it and tell us what is your true relationship with anyone involved in this article, and whether you have received benefit from them. You also ought to create the article through the WP:articles for creation process.

Please, disclose your conflict of interest, preferably on your user page or talk page. Otherwise, I am afraid that I will need to raise it to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I mean. The client means the person to be interviewed.His daughter did not entrust me to edit it. Please note that the Chinese version had already those content before I edit it.I just made some slight edition.Good luck. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2024-02 ✗ deleted

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 11:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete After reading the above, I think BLP1E applies, but I'd be more comfortable with !voting delete if I could read Chinese and do my own search for relevant sources. Pichpich (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 03:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic user interface

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

Can find very little substantial coverage; there are barely any mentions of this term in books or journals and those that exist are invariably passing usages of the term to describe a specific kind of interface rather than WP:SIGCOV of the topic as a whole. It doesn't seem to be notable as opposed to individual topics that would fall under this definition such as Screen reader and Virtual assistant. ― novov (t c) 10:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and Computing. ― novov (t c) 10:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. The term also describes the "voicemail hell" offered by many call centres as a way of serving customers without getting a human involved. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether a few sources which mention the term exist, but whether they are substantial enough to comprise significant coverage and support the content. Although the sources mention SUI they don't go into detail about the concept itself and none back up the definition given in the article. Two of them only include the term once. ― novov (t c) 22:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any distinction between sonic user interfaces and voice user interfaces? Might be worth making this page a redirect to voice user interface if there isn't. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to voice user interface. That is a much more commonly used term. It is unclear what the difference between a "sonic user interface" and "voice user interface" actually is, and we don't have sufficient reliable sources to justify drawing such a distinction. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Czechoslovakia at the 1992 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. Edit of the hat note can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 03:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karel Dostál

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

Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG; no significant coverage or medal record. Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia is unsourced and very short, which would help copy over English article otherwise. Google searches come up with silly, random namesakes. Given this man's current age, we can assume his bobsleigh career is over. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider changing the hatnote at Karel Dostal to point to Czechoslovakia at the 1992 Winter Olympics. This bobsledder has zero notability unfortunately. Geschichte (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1992 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh per reasons in nom. Better redirect than delete just like in the previous similar cases. FromCzech (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily agree because the actor is what people expect to find. Shouldn't he be located at this title, with the diacritic? Geschichte (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The actor Karel Dostal is without diacritics. Two different names. FromCzech (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 02:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BS 7799

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

I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a great article, but seems to be notable. Some sources that talk about it at varying degrees of depth (mostly academic): [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]. PopoDameron ⁠talk 20:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- sources found by Explicit are sufficient to meet the GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per new sources. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to South Korea–Uruguay relations. as I don't think a third relisting will clarify the situation. And if non-English sources can't be used to establish SIGCOV, I'd like to see where that is mentioned in policy. I think there would be significant pushback as I'm guessing the majority of editors here have a facility in additional languages besides English. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Uruguayans

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

This intersecting ethnicity has some sources, but at 130 people I just don't see the notability beyond trivial information, i.e. most capitals probably have a Korean restaurant. Geschichte (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to South Korea–Uruguay relations. Side note, but I made a solid effort to find WP:SIGCOV in the Korean language about the Korean population in Uruguay and struggled to do so. Some of the Spanish-language refs on the article are actually pretty substantial discussions of the population. toobigtokale (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge Officially, SIGCOV has to be in English. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a different understanding; WP:SIGCOV seems to say Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. There's also this essay WP:SBEXTERNAL that I agree with. If sigcov really excluded non-English sources, I'd push back hard against the policy, and I think I wouldn't be alone. Most of my writing would get deleted overnight, and I'd like to think some of the things I cover that are only covered in Korean are interesting and important. toobigtokale (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I've made the same mistake. These non-English articles can be translated. Conyo14 (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 07:25, 27 February 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) 16:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I see some issues, but are they irredeemable? Bearian (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself is ok enough, the issue is WP:NOTABILITY. toobigtokale (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

X Motor Racing

AfDs for this article:

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

Having being in sim racing myself, this game fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NVIDEOGAMES. Still, it was no different from the last nomination when people were playing rFactor but in this era of ACC, this sim is now virtually dead and forgotten. Not to forget WP:SPA (given the editing history of Alexandro sds)

Nothing new since then, other than the roasting by Jimmy Broadbent. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article says: It has not been reviewed formally by publications and therefore has no Metacritic rating. which is nonsense, as it's been repeatedly and savagely trashed by Joystick [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] but sadly one publisher's coverage is not entering the territory of notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep I found a mention in The Games Machine and Rock Paper Shotgun. This leads me to think GNG is barely being passed, though it could go either way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good find and edges it on the razor's edge of notability, great work. It's a shame that the extant sources do not really provide much verifiable information about the gameplay, but I've seen articles with worse sourcing. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Just enough with the reviews found and the discussion on how bad it is/was, should be notable now. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Battle of Parwan#Prelude. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Waliyan

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

This battle does not have significant coverage in reliable sources.

The relevant sources (e.g. Barthold 1968 and Sverdrup 2017) only discuss it as a minor skirmish in the lead up to the Battle of Parwan, and describe it in three sentences or less. This is reflected in the weighting of the article, the vast majority of which is dedicated to "Background" and only two sentences to the actual battle. Additionally, as noted on the talk page, the source which states that this battle resulted in uprisings can be clearly seen to misread his source. Further justifications for keeping the article on the talk page were largely original research or WP:ILIKEIT.

Bringing this here as a previous WP:BLAR to Battle of Parwan#Prelude was reverted. I still think a redirect there is the best course of action. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Afghanistan, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone is confused about the sources, here are the ones relevant to the battle:
- Barthold 1968 pp.441–2: "From [Parwan] [Jalal al-Din] first of all defeated a Mongol force which was besieging the fortress of Waliyan (or Walishtan) in Tukharistan. The Mongols lost 1,000 men killed, crossed the river (probably the Panjshir) and destroyed the bridge; by this means they delayed their enemies long enough to enable them to return swiftly to Chingiz-Khan." There follow 17 sentences on the Battle of Parwan and its aftermath.
- Sverdrup 2017: "Mongol officers Taqacaq and Mulgar attempted to take Waliyan. Jalal al-Din moved to Parwan; making a quick move across the mountains to the north, he surprised and routed the Mongols at Waliyan, inflicting a reported 1,000 loss on them. The Mongols retreated across a river, and destroyed a bridge to keep the enemy from following (spring 1221). Jalal al-Din had left his baggage at Parwan and returned there." There follow 20 sentences on the Battle of Parwan and its aftermath.
And those relevant to the alleged uprisings:
- Jacobs 2012 p. 132: "Jelal ad-Din (1207–1273) had organized an army at this time and even beaten a Mongol army at Waliyan (Barthold, 441–2). In several other towns the citizens took heart at this victory and rebelled, slaying their Mongol governors (op. cit., 442)."
- Here Jacobs, a non-specialist historian, makes two errors which shows his lack of familiarity with the material: 1) he gets Jelal ad-Din's dates entirely wrong (he actually lived c. 1995–1233), and 2) he misunderstands Barthold, who clearly states that the rebellions were the result of the Battle of Parwan. This clearly shows that Jacobs is not a reliable source.
What the article currently says on the battle: "From there, he went first to Waliyan, which was under siege by the Mongols, defeated their two armies under the leaderships of Tekejik and Molger, and lifted the siege of Waliyan, with about 1,000 Mongol casualties. The Mongols fled by crossing a river, probably the Panjshir River, and destroyed the bridge behind them. The victory of Waliyan motivated other cities to rebel against the Mongols, and to slain their Mongol Governors." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Obviously no copyright rules have been violated here as far as I am aware, but see also what Earwig's Copyvio Detector says when comparing this article to the Battle of Parwan, it's indeed mostly copied from that article; [40]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think a redirect to Battle of Parwan#Prelude might also work HistoryofIran? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that would work too. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :Sources are few and laconic, but this is clearly more than a "skirmish" since as many as 1000 Mongols soldiers are said to have been lost... The timing too seems fairly remote from the Battle of Parwan, as Waliyan occured in spring, whereas Parwan was in autumn. Parwan was actually motivated by the humiliation of Waliyan, which incited Genghis Khan to mobilize a large amount of troops for retribution, so Waliyan was not an insignificant encounter in his mind either: it was a significant and humiliating defeat which deserved a strong response. The location too is fairly distant. Actually, I started this article because the Battle of Waliyan is illustrated in ancient sources (), whereas Parwan is not, and I was wondering what this was refering to. We can trim the article by reducing the background if necessary, but I don't see how the encyclopedia would benefit by deleting it: we're better off by having a map, a description of the encounter, the historical illustration of it, and a summary of what sources have to say about it... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to address how you feel the article meets WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly satisfied with notability given that the battle is significant and mentioned in several reliable sources. Its only shortcoming is that not too many details are known about the battle, but shortish articles are also acceptable on Wikipedia. In addition, a map helps understand the dynamic of this encounter, and the depiction of the battle (

) is quite famous. Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"A map" the map shows half the world, the only detail being a red dot in what seems to be northern present-day Afghanistan. Moreover, how is that depiction "quite famous"? HistoryofIran (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested above. The sourcing is much too thin for a standalone article. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has been suggested above by the user पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra). I commend his points and though the article may qualify for deletion due to coming short of WP:Notability, this battle is kinda exception as had great importance in medieval sources rather than contemporary modern scholarship. --88.230.179.76 (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC) — 88.230.179.76 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- So just to clarify, the article fails the notability guidelines but because it was described in one (1) medieval chronicle, it's worthy of a Wikipedia article? Not sure of that logic, personally. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Index of underwater divers

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

Don't need a comprehensive list of all notable underwater divers, this is what categories for Category:Underwater divers and its subcategories are for. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, and Lists. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply as the index is a list of actual Wikipedia articles about people who are notable for some aspect of their diving activities, not just any notable people who happen to be occasional divers. It is an index, which is an easy way to find an article by alphabetical listing, not a category tree, which is an appalling way to find an article alphabetically, due to subcategories, which break the alphabetical listing up, and Wikipedia categories are full of inappropriate categorisations, making them even more ineffective. Categories have their functions, but they are not the only accepted method. Indexes are an broadly accepted navigation tool on Wkipedia, and have been so for a long time. They are not to be deprecated at the whim of a small group without first going to the community with an appropriate RfC. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I notice that WP:WikiProject Indexes has not been notified. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to notify them, but there isn't an easy deletion sorting for them, which is the way I've notified all the other places. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That does not look like a very good reason to fail to notify them, There are tags on the talk page for interested and affected projects. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The nomination is invalid. Lists of articles are not directories, otherwise, we would not have categories, lists, outlines, indexes, navigation footers, navigation sidebars, etc. Nominator has also based deletion on the grounds that the page is a list. Lists (including indexes) are an acceptable article type. Redundancy between navigation pages is also acceptable, and is covered in WP:CLN, while the acceptability of distinct page types on the same subject is covered in WP:DIFFFORKS. Aside from the erroneous policy citation, nominator has based his deletion argument on his own opinion ("Don't need"), rather than on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The article in question was developed in full accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please speedy close this invalid deletion discussion. — The Transhumanist 00:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does its existence benefit readers? It's an overly long index that duplicates better ways of storing this information. Not speedy keep eligible, as the nomination is valid even if you disagree with it. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the explanation of how it is "overly long", then you might consider comparing its length with an index from a print encyclopedia, even quite a small one. There are no other ways that the information in it is stored that are reasonably accessible, as you would notice if you compare what all is available on Wikipedia with what is in this index. I know this because it was not easy, and a lot of work to compile. If you can show me these other ways and they actually provide the same information, without requiring a complicated database search, I would be delighted to know. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't need its own index, is better supported as a series of categories. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Let'srun (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what way do you claim it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, Please be specific if you wish to be taken seriously by the closer. Also explain how WP:NOTDIRECTORY is applicable in this case. The rest of your opinions have been rebutted above. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to List of underwater divers Geysirhead (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a list of underwater divers, it is an actual index to underwater divers notable for being underwater divers and having a Wikipedia article. There are many articles on people who also happen to be underwater divers, but are not notable for that, and are listed in the category tree, that do not belong in this index. Cheers,· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should mention that there are literally millions of underwater divers, a very small part of whom are ever likely to have a Wikipedia article, and an even smaller number who are likely to ever be notable for their diving activities or experiences. The current scope of the index is relatively tiny in comparison with the scope of this proposal, which would actually be relatively well represented by categories. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Related to Geysirhead's comment, the list is more annotated than most indexes, although not uniquely so. Regardless, indexes are list articles, so discussion of how WP:NLIST applies would be relevant.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the presence or absence of annotation have any bearing on whether the article should be kept or not? General guidance for lists, which includes indexes, is that appropriate annotation is desirable. In this case it is automatic through the {{Annotated link}} templates · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the notability of an index list of notable divers, the exact criteria for inclusion in our index is obviously subject to consensus in the usual way. (Make your proposals on the talk page, and we can take it from there). There are organisations such as International Scuba Diving Hall of Fame and Women Divers Hall of Fame dedicated to honouring notable divers within their scopes, which do not necessarily coincide with our criteria, which currently also include divers notable for other things, like involvement in notable accidents, setting world records, performing notable rescues, discovering or salvaging notable shipwrecks, starting notable diving related organisations etc, inventing notable equipment or procedures, and generally being sufficiently notable to have an article on Wikipedia, as well as being notable in connection with underwater diving. We can make our scope narrower and more precise if someone can produce an appropriate set of criteria which are both rational and within policy and guidance. It is likely that this will become necessary over time, but it does not seem to be urgent at present. The Transhumanist, you might wish to expand on this. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note also, that an index is constrained far beyond a regular list, which could contain a far wider variety of entries, which are not inherently required to meet WP notability constraints in the way that an index, which links to existing articles that have already been shown to be notable, does. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems a perfectly reasonable navigational list; not every reader understands or is aware of categories, and the level of annotation is also very reasonable. No problem with moving to "List" instead of "Index" if preferred. Elemimele (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with comment just above. Bduke (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Challenge to the premise The nominator, Joseph2302, claims Don't need a comprehensive list of all notable underwater divers, this is what categories for Category:Underwater divers and its subcategories are for. I suggest that this is simply wrong, and that it is not possible to use the Category:Underwater divers and its subcategories to produce a "comprehensive list of all notable underwater divers" or even a non-comprehensive list of "notable underwater divers" which excludes underwater divers which are not notable as underwater divers, (ie. an equivalent to the index they proposed for deletion) without considerable post-processing by a knowledgeable editor. I challenge them to demonstrate their claim. If this cannot be done, the reason given for the nomination is invalid. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 07:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campism

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

I'm looking at the article here, and the longstanding one at third camp, and I can't come to the conclusion that the concept of "campism" is notable in a distinct way. The sourcing in the article is as follows:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
New Politics (1)	Why not?	For sake of argument, why not?	Seems to be about the subject of campism	✔ Yes
New Politics (2)	Why not?	For sake of argument, why not?	Seems to be about the subject of campism	✔ Yes
Negation Magazine	Why not?	~ I'm somewhat skeptical; this looks more like a group blog than a magazine with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking.	This discusses the third camp during the cold war. It doesn't discuss the term "campism" in a significant way.	✘ No
Democratic Socialists of America	Why not?	This is the blog of a political organization. It also appears to have the standard opinion piece disclaimer of "The views and opinions presented in Socialist Forum reflect those of the individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of DSA".	This does not discuss the term "campism" in a meaningful way, though it does go into the history of the Trotskyist third camp.	✘ No
Fidel Castro's speech to the U.N.	? Cannot tell, since the link is broken, and the archive doesn't actually point to the speech.	If this is merely a political speech to the United Nations by Castro, that isn't the sort of thing that makes a WP:RS.	? Source link is broken.	✘ No
Third World Quarterly	Why not?	Why not?	While this gives historical coverage of the concept of "third-worldism", it doesn't so much as mention the concept of "campism".	✘ No
Open Democracy	Why not?	Per WP:RSOPINION, Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces... are rarely reliable for statements of fact.	? Moot as clearly not reliable.	✘ No
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}}.

What this brings us is two sources from the same group publication (New Politics), but WP:SIGCOV notes that [m]ultiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. As such, we don't have multiple independent reliable sources based on the citations in the article itself. Outside of this, I was able to find some coverage of the term "campism", but it was entirely from unreliable sources like Counterpunch (RSP entry) and Paul Mason's substack (a blog), or from sources that had nothing to do with the descriptor as it pertains to third world theory (Hindustan Times).

In light of this, and the history of the term, I would advocate that the article be blanked-and-redirected to third camp, which seems to cover the relevant concept within third worldism. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: Thank you for your notes! I've updated the article to use several more scholarly and WP:NEWSORG sources (and fixed the Castro link). I would strongly oppose deletion: I think the article's sources, at present, meet WP:GNG. SocDoneLeft (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per SocDoneLeft and added references. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Not only are the sources already in the article sufficient to meet the GNG, but there are other quality sources, just for instance: [41]. Central and Adams (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify — This article is poorly formatted and seemingly miscontextualizes sources to articulate this topic via an almost exclusively Trotskyist view. This topic itself is fairly notable, but many of the people who employ the term "campism" are not Trotskyists. SociusMono1976 (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify is not a direct outcome of a deletion discussion. Per WP:Draftify the route from AfD to draftspace is that the article is deleted (because the subject is not notable) and then someone requests undeletion to draft space in order to try to improve it:

Articles may be moved to become a draft as a result of a deletion discussion, indirectly following deletion and a request for undeletion.

If the topic is notable, as you say that it is, it's not a candidate for deletion and therefore not for draftification via AfD. Central and Adams (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Draftify is not a direct outcome of a deletion discussion, it can be. The deletion policy is quite clear that Recently created articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace ("draftified") for improvement. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Joubert

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

Subject does not fulfill notability criteria, I could not find any sources. The book Die Groot Gedagte is perhaps notable because of the prize it won. However, I was not able to find reviews for it, either. Broc (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and South Africa. Broc (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Afrikaans article at af:Gideon Joubert has several references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain I don't think "the page has references" is a valid statement for AfD. Are they reliable independent sources? Three of them are obituaries (one of them can be found online here, one is a link to the publisher's website, two are reviews of his book (which, as mentioned, might be notable). The last reference is sufficiently non-descriptive to make it impossible to be found "Alberts, Louw. Insig, April 1998". Broc (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 02:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Thailand Semi-pro League final

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

No evidence of WP:SUSTAINED notability for this single, poorly attended, lower level match. Fram (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and Thailand. Fram (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source. The official Facebook of the Thailand Semi-pro League has more than 63,000 followers. This is a major tournament in Thailand's football league system. So, the final match of this tournament matters to at least 63,000 people. In addition, more than 11,000 followers of Khelang United and more than 75,000 followers of Satun on the club's Facebook also pay attention to this match. Source of Khelang United Source of Satun

Supersub Thailand which has more than 290,000 followers is the official broadcaster of the 2023 Thailand Semi-pro League final. Source

The competition regulation of the Thailand Semi-pro League is from the FA Thailand's official website. Source Gunkiet (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My friend SunDawn, please help me to review this article and confirm it. Gunkiet (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The competition regulation of the Thailand Semi-pro League is from the FA Thailand's official website. Source

Gunkiet (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For notability you need independent sourcing, the FA Thailand is not independent of this competition so that source has no importance for a deletion debate. Fram (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean about independent of the competition. This competition is organized by the Football Association of Thailand. There are many news agencies in Thailand that publish news about this competition. Football clubs that have the right to be promoted from this competition to Thai League 3 must have legal entity status and pass club licensing standards. In summary, the Thai Semi-pro League is part of the professional football league system of Thailand that is in tier 4. That's why I think the final of this tournament should have its own article. If you don't think so, feel free to delete it. I just want to develop the best encyclopedia of Thailand's professional football leagues. Gunkiet (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gunkiet, your reasoning is good enough to support the notability of the Thailand Semi-pro League, but that doesn't necessarily mean an individual article for the 2023 final match is warranted. For that, it needs to be demonstrated that there's significant interest and coverage for the match itself, not just the entire competition. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Match reports in Naewna and INN News (these are from the same source) and Ballthai.com. Supersub Thailand had a few interview highlights presented as pre-match writeups.[42][43][44] (Pinging GiantSnowman per request.) --Paul_012 (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:22, 27 February 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) 16:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Followers on social media mean very little without independent coverage. I don't see what this match article does. As Paul_012 says above, there's no doubt that the league's page should exist, but that doesn't mean this match is notable. Anwegmann (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Garmers

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

Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR: only minor roles so far, and I can find no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Wikishovel (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Minnesota, and New York. Wikishovel (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is listed in various databases but I find no trace of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. In other words, fails the notability test. Pichpich (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I see no other closure possible. Future action--Merger, rename, etc.-- can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of battle for the Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1412–1414)

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

Largely a WP:OR/WP:SYNTH reconstruction based on very old primary sources, about battles and sieges we don't have articles on, which were part of a 3 year campaign we don't have an article on, which was part of an 11 year war we don't have an article on. Fram (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Myanmar. Fram (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hybernator's points are convincing, though it might help to mention the Forty Years' War in the lead. Not sure how 19th and 20th century sources are a primary source for the 15th century wars. Using published books that are referred to seminally in the field of Burmese history is probably better than relying on random 21st century websites anyways. I'm not an expert on WP:OR but I'm not sure putting things into a list is necessarily WP:SYNTH even if they were not in the original sources. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram:, a few points:

The chronicles are definitely not primary sources. They are in fact secondary (tertiary and beyond) sources. They were written long after the war took place.
This article is part of the Forty Years' War, which is covered in a number of English-language academic books/papers. It's not some obscure war. (The war's specific campaigns are also covered in the Minkhaung I, Minye Kyawswa and Razadarit articles.)
Re: OR/SYNTH: The chronicles literally provide these lists throughout. (In fact, some historians have called the Burmese chronicles essentially the military history of Burma.) Academic works essentially follow the chronicle narratives; See (Harvey 1925) and (Fernquest 2006), both listed in the Bibliography. The main thing they (Harvey and Leiberman) question is the size of the forces--which I have mentioned in every order of battle article I've contributed to. (Per Harvey's analysis, I've reduced the force sizes by an order of magnitude.) In any case, I have provided what the chronicles actually state so that readers could compare.
This was fine with my previous orders of battle articles; in fact, the Orders of battle for the Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1385–1391) was a DYK article.
As for the main article not being there, first, where does it say that an order of battle article can be written only after an article on the war has been written? Secondly, the Forty Years' War can be the main article until someone decides to write a more specific article on the 1408–1418 campaigns (as I did with the 1385–1391 and 1401–1403). But even if I don't end up writing, this article can stand on its own.
Anyway, I welcome suggestions, edits and contributions to this article. I don't see why it needs to be deleted. Thanks. Hybernator (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per article creator. How dare you accuse Myanmar's main royal chronicles of being primary sources without evidence! The Burmese royal chronicles are definitely not primary sources. You can't judge another country's national chronicles, especially since you're not Burmese and clearly lack knowledge about Myanmar. You're attempting to challenge the Burmese project, but there are few active Burmese editors. The list of royal orders for battles is clearly important and worthy of having a standalone article as part of Myanmar's historical events. I'm shocked to see you nominate the article for deletion, especially since the subject exceeds the notability guideline. So what's your problem? Before making judgments on national historical books, you need evidence to support your claims. Thank you. 1.46.91.225 (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why some are making baseless AfD (Articles for Deletion) for unknown reasons. That's why I retired from editing Wikipedia. It's very depressing. 1.46.91.225 (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that this AfD should've been closed as Keep already, no need to be hostile. Please assume good faith- Royal chronicles can be primary sources, it's just in this case that the earliest source used for these 15th century wars is an epigraphical 18th century book. The AfD may be baseless but it's easy to see how an average reader (who would also clearly lack knowledge about Myanmar) may mistakenly think the chronicles cited are from the 15th century. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

အပိုတွေပြောနေလဲ အပိုပဲ အောက်မှာ အောက်တန်းစား လူရမ်းကား groupလိုက်ရောက်လာပြီ ဒီလိုသတောင်းစားတွေက မြန်မာpj အပေါ် ဘာမှအကူညီမရတဲ့အပြင် ဖျက်ဖို့ပဲ ကြိုးစားနေကြတယ် အဲ့တာတွေ စိတ်ကုန်တာ... Hybernatorလို ထိပ်တန်း editor တယောက် အနေနဲ့ မသေချာ မရေရာပဲ ဖန်တီးပါ့မလား အခု ခွေးအုပ်စု လုပ်ရပ်က Hybernator လက်ရှိရေးသားနေတဲ့ ဆောင်းပါး ပေါ်အပြင် တခြားဟာတွေပါ ထိခိုက်လာမယ် တခုပြီး တခု ဖျက်ဖို့လုပ်မယ် ခွေးမျိုးတွေ လုပ်နိုင်တာ ဒါပဲလေ, ကိုယ်တွေကအနေသာကြီးပါ Eng Wikipedia က မြန်မာဆောင်းပါး ၃ပူံပုံ တပုံလောက်က ကိုယ်ဖန်တီးခဲ့ပြီးပြီမို့ အေးဆေးအနားယူနေပါတယ် မနေနိုင်လို့သာ ဝင်လာပြောတာ, တကယ် စိတ်ကုန်ရပါတယ် ဒီလိုတွေ မရောင်ရာ ဆီလာလူးနေမယ်ဆို Hybernatorပါ အိုင့်လို ဒါမှ မဟုတ် ကိုဟင်သာ လို ပျောက်ကွယ်သွားလိမ့်မယ်, ကို Hybernatorအနေနဲ့လည်း သေချာလေး ဖိပီး ရှင်းလင်းသင့်တယ် ဖန် ဆိုတဲ့ အမျိုးယုတ်က တပည့် များစွာ လပ်သပ်မွေးထားတာ တချိန်ထဲ ဖျက်ဖို့မဲတွေများလာတာ သံသယဖြစ်စရာပဲ 1.46.207.139 (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Granting that machine translation is not a perfect tool, there seem to be personal attacks in this post. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 12:38, 6 March 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) 16:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would be more convinced of notability if there was more coverage from more independent sources. True enough that the 19th-century royal chronicles aren't primary sources for the 15th-century wars, but the royalty are plausibly invested in particular interpretations of conflicts between antecedent states. I would be as uneasy about citing, say, a hypothetical official chronicle of the House of Windsor for the history of William the Conqueror. Additionally, a footnote in the article reveals that the military mobilization figures in this article are reduced by an order of magnitude from those reported in the royal chronicles, per G.E. Harvey's analysis in his History of Burma (1925) in the section Numerical Note. While this might be fair scholarship, I struggle to see how it isn't WP:OR, taking one source (Harvey) and synthesizing it with others (the royal chronicles) and deriving an interpretation of historical evidence (the reduced figures being more likely than the reported figures). Finally, I struggle to identify any notable coverage of the "Ava–Hanthawaddy War" as the "Ava–Hanthawaddy War" (Google Scholar, Google keyword search), even in Burmese (Google Scholar, Google keyword search). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [Self-struck P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)][reply]
Delete lack of coverage in independent reliable sources; if it is necessary to reduce all figures taken from them by an order of magnitude, the royal chronicles are clearly not reliable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article without much prose and too many charts. Regardless, I don't see notability and can barely find mention of this battle from many centuries ago. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment puppet students of a someome arrived here by an order from Whatsapp group. Shame!1.46.207.139 (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Royal chronicles are undeniably the primary sources of Burmese history of royal kingdoms. Htanaungg (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'll try to answer the concerns raised here. I'll assume good faith as I can't assume the general audience to be familiar with Burmese history or the country's extensive chronicle tradition.

Notability: The Forty Years' War is considered one of the most significant and influential wars in Burmese history. It is covered prominently in every major English language work on general Burmese history. Starting from (Phayre 1883), (Harvey 1925), (Hall 1960), (Htin Aung 1967), (Aung-Thwin and Aung-Thwin 2013). Many of these are available online. For more specific works on the war itself, check out (Fernquest 2006). (Aung-Thwin 2017) covers and Ava and Hanthawaddy Pegu between the 14th and 16 centuries, and the war of course is covered extensively as it preserved Pegu's independence. The war is listed in this (Dictionary of Wars by George Kohn 2006).
Sourcing: The extant chronicles are not primary sources by a long shot. The Burmese chronicles article covers that extensively. (For the record, I contributed to that article.) You can check out the sources. The earliest chronicle that covers the war was translated into Burmese (from Mon) in the 1560s. The first national chronicle, the Maha Yazawin was written in 1724, and the Yazawin Thit chronicle (1798) actually corrected some of the dates based on epigraphical evidence. The Hmannan (1832) was based on the Maha Yazawin and took many of the dates from the Yazawin Thit.
Some of the sources of the chronicles have survived. The Royal Orders of Burma, 1598–1885 is viewable online. There's a five volume work on ancient stone inscriptions from the Pagan to Ava periods. This earlier, smaller 1899 work has English translations.

Reliability: AFAIK, no historian has questioned that the war took place, or that the various regiments from different regions participated. What some have questioned about the number of troops, I have mentioned it prominently in every order of article. In general, historians consider the Burmese chronicles to be very reliable. I can supply the quotes from the likes of Victor Lieberman, G.E. Harvey, D.G.E. Hall. Are they completely neutral? Or 100% accurate? Of course not. But all of the Burma/Myanmar historians have referenced the chronicles.

Little Prose: This article is meant to be on orders of battle. From what I can see, most orders of battle articles have little prose. As far as the charts, I took the time to put the regiments in a table.

Lastly, I've contributed many articles using the chronicles, alongside other history books. And gotten 3 GAs and many DYKs, including one for Orders of battle for the Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1385–1391). Other editors found them good enough.

Anyway, I don't expect every editor to be fully up to speed on Burmese history. I welcome suggestions to improve the article. Cheers, Hybernator (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability: the sources raised would be useful if we were discussing the notability of Forty Years' War. We are not—we are discussing Orders of battle for the Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1412–1414). Just because a topic is notable does not mean every conceivable subtopic is.
- Source reliability: if historians have questioned the number of troops, declined to provide more than a ratio, but you have calculated seemingly-precise numbers based on a throwaway line in a 99-year old source, then that is original research.
- Previous contributions: Thousands of articles which have gone through DYK and GA have been deleted. I myself have even successfully nominated a couple of featured articles for deletion. Vague gestures to the past are meaningless. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that not every subtopic is automatically notable. At the same time, there are many precedences for "sub-topic" articles on wars. Look at the Napoleonic Wars and several "sub" articles: War of the Third Coalition, Fourth Coalition, etc. Likewise for order of battle articles: many order of battle articles are at the battle level, much more specific than at the campaign level. In this case, yes, all of the individual campaigns of the Forty Year's War are covered in the English language works I mentioned above. Don't take my word: some of them like (Fernquest 2006) are freely viewable online. (Now, I don't think being covered in an English language work or being Googleable should be the main criterion for notability but I recognize it's one of the inherent factors here.)

Re: "throw-away line about the troop strength" by Harvey. Well, I also quoted Lieberman's take from his 1984 book which concurs with Harvey's take. Other than dividing the chronicle figures by ten, I haven't created any what you call "seemingly precise" figures. In fact, I've gone to great lengths to list the figures reported in the various chronicles; see the article's notes section because I want people to be able to double-check the figures. You'll see that some of the battles don't have any figures because none of the chronicles provides any. In some of the battles, chronicles provide regimental commanders, but in many cases, only the lead commanders are mentioned. Hybernator (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am accustomed to assuming good faith about sources I can't access; that is not the problem. What's becoming problematic is that even the accessible sources you tell us are about the topic don't seem to really be. The Fernquest (2006) article never mentions an Ava–Hanthawaddy War, or Hanthawaddy for that matter (except in the title of a bibliographic item cited only once). But this is only the tip of the iceberg of problems.

The nominated Wikipedia article states (permanent link) that The orders of battle for Hanthawaddy Pegu are mainly sourced from Nai Pan Hla's version of the Razadarit Ayedawbon. Meanwhile, Fernquest tells us on page 4 that there are problems with the primary sources used to write "Rajadhirat Ayeidawpon" (I gather this is a different transliteration of Razadarit Ayedawbon) and adds that When we read of Rajadhirat and his exploits we can never be quite sure whether we are reading historical fact or fiction (bolding added) and that the resulting "ethno-history" that we now have has to best be characterized as indigenous intellectual history, not the history of events at all (bolding added). And yet the Wikipedia article treats the Razadarit Ayedawbon as a reliable source, when it makes claims about deeds of Razadarit/Rajadhirat may not have even happened?

And every time I reread, I seem to notice more WP:OR in the article, like this: The Razadarit Ayedawbon gives the 5th waxing of Nadaw 770 ME [sic] as the start of the Prome campaign.[10] However, the 770 ME is a typographical error since the main chronicles say the campaign took place in 774 ME. This means the invasion date was probably the 5th waxing of Nadaw 774 ME (8 November 1412). What is the second sentence cited to? Nothing. It is the Wikipedian's original research, extrapolating beyond what some troublingly unreliable sources state.

The appropriate step at this point would be to delete this article and to self-nominate for deletion articles like Orders of battle for the Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1385–1391), which have the same problems. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of (Fernquest 2006) is about King Razadarit, and most of the campaigns of the Forty Years' War that took place during the king's reign. Hanthawaddy is the classical name of Pegu. Ava–Hanthawaddy War is also called Ava–Pegu War.
Regarding the date (5th waxing of Nadaw 770 ME), yes, the reported date in the Razadarit Ayedawbon is different from the 774 ME date reported in the main chronicles. What's wrong with reporting that chronicles don't always agree? In fact, there are many other chronicle reporting differences, and I've taken the time to report both sides. The Razadarit was written from the Hanthawaddy perspective while the main chronicles are from Ava's. In fact, the last two pages of Fernquest's article provide a comparison between the Razadarit and the Maha Yazawin (U Kala).
AFAIK, all the major books on Burmese history (see above) cover the war, and they all cite the chronicles (primarily the Maha Yazawin (U Kala) and Hmannan chronicles). We have contemporary inscriptional evidence of the war. (It's surreal I even have to be arguing about this.) In fact, I'm not aware of any works that say the war and the campaigns didn't take place. It's fine to challenge/update/remove certain sections of the article. But it's another to say an article on a notable subject must be deleted. Hybernator (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As AirshipJungleman29 already explained, gesturing to the main topic isn't sufficient to establish the notability and verifiability of this subtopic. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like how you completely ignore the part where fundamental sourcing issues are uncovered, and focus on attacking an imaginary strawman where the argument is about whether a war happened. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability: In your view, is the sourcing issue fundamentally unrecoverable? Issues regarding OR for calculating could be solved by rewriting the article to reflect the uncertainty and discussing the sources' differences rather than deleting the article.
Notability: I agree that the main topic doesn't make 1412-1414 notable. However, looking the overall context, it looks like @Hybernator is working to fill out the following:
I'm not sure if there's a reason in sources to split the 1408-1418 campaign into 3 orders of battles, and there may be more notability if the three Orders of Battle were merged. I haven't reviewed the sources in detail to make that judgement, I'm presuming there is some reason for the (currently unwritten) 1408-1418 campaign being grouped as it is. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've split into separate articles mainly for length considerations. We could combine all into one but the resulting one would be too unwieldy. Besides most other order of battle articles are at the battle level, and are much shorter. Hybernator (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's likely that this article could be classified as a type of WP:LISTV, given its focus on a significant part of the historical war campaign in Myanmar. However, if possible, this article should be merged into the main Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1408–1418). If merged, the article size would become too large and unsuitable for Wikipedia, so splitting it into a sub-article seems like a better approach, in my opinion. 180.183.224.201 (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly: EmeraldRange's question about whether the sourcing issue is fundamentally unrecoverable made me rethink and reread the arguments. I have struck my above delete !vote. I also got around to checking on what Hybernator said about Hanthawaddy also being known as Pegu, and it turns out that while I couldn't find the "Ava–Hanthawaddy War", Ava–Pegu War does have hits on GoogleScholar. I think the article still has problems (possibly it has the wrong name, and I think parts of it are WP:OR that should be removed), but I'm not as sure anymore that deletion is the right answer. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 11:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost boat investigation

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

source reliability, outdated information, tone/style issues, duplication Lea 4545 (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Source reliability isn't a reason for deletion as long as there are reliable sources, which there seems to be. The bad sources can simply be replaced and removed

- not a reason for deletion

All of these are fixable and it isn't TNT level bad. Keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Sources already in the article are sufficient to satisfy GNG. Furthermore, as PARAKANYAA notes nom has failed to adduce *any* valid criteria for deletion. Central and Adams (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Transportation, Africa, Libya, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. S5A-0043^Talk 03:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good references. Within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is sufficient. AfD is not cleanup. AusLondonder (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 06:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mesivta Ohel Torah

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

Not notable per WP:NSCHOOL, that is, per WP:ORG or WP:GNG. All I can find about it online is similar to what's here: passing mentions in articles about other things, and routine school listings. Proposed deletion last week was contested without comment by the article creator. Wikishovel (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Judaism, and New York. Wikishovel (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Bearing in mind that high schools used to (before February 2017) be considered inherently notable, I have added what I believe to be just enough coverage to get this school over the top. It is listed and mentioned in various independent sources, including U.S. News & World Report, and this mention might fit the definition of WP:SIGCOV. Note that the school goes by a few different names and spellings including Mesifta Ohel Torah, Yeshiva Ohel Torah and Yeshiva High School of Monsey. StonyBrook _babble 21:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@StonyBrook: thank you for all the work you put in on this, but although the sources you've added are reliable, they only provide passing mentions of the school. We need to find significant coverage of the school itself, per WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, the weak part of my !vote, and why I linked the RfC in it. But the closers of that same discussion also found that it "[stopped] short of a rough consensus" on the question of whether to grant inherent notability status on secondary schools. They went on to say that if a normal-depth search fails to find any evidence that the school exists, the article on the school should be deleted without the need for a deeper search. While no one is saying that every school is inherently notable, I think we can agree that a) there are more than enough sources here which demonstrate that the school exists b) enough can be gleaned from these sources to write at least a stub article about it. In the U.S. News & World Report I found basic information such as the school's address, type, and enrollment; from other sources I found some basic history about the founders, names of head teachers and controversy about getting the dormitory approved by the local authorities. In my view, the above constitutes WP:SIGCOV in the strictest sense of the term. Contrast this with another school that I found which has a very similar name to this one, except that the source for it only provides an address, and nothing more. StonyBrook _babble 18:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though a stub, it seems to have a good couple of reliable sources, even if they only mention it in passing, to the point of being reliable. I can do stuff! (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run-of-the-mill school that fails to satisfy the criteria outlined in WP:ORGDEPTH. In a WP:BEFORE search, it did not yield significant coverage from reliable sources, except for some passing mentions, profile listings, and a few unreliable sources that are insufficient to establish notability. GSS ^💬 15:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Groove Collective. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Rodríguez Sierra

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

A lot of WP:ORIGINAL here. Current sourcing is just the person's music profiles. There is one article referenced, but I believe it is a non-WP:RELIABLE WordPress blog. TLA (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Owen× ☎ 13:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. We are gathering the original sources (record labels etc) and updating the references. Lilihousemusic (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking about when you say "we"? Bolt and Thunder (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, We are Esteban and Aurelie, we created Jay's page.

Best Lilihousemusic (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lilihousemusic, it is against Wikipedia policy to share accounts. Do you have an affiliation with the subject? Were you paid by him to create the article? —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: They do have a Grammy nomination which supports WP:MUSICBIO and a SMH article. The possible violation and COI isn't great, but I think I may withdraw this in a few days after seeing some comments from other editors. I would like to see better sourcing incorporated though and the necessary cleanup take place, though. TLA^tlak 07:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Delete argument based on current state of the article - WP:NOTCLEANUP. Grammy nom and sources turned up so far appear to establish notability. Here's one more for good measure. ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Groove Collective: Per WP:BANDMEMBER. The Grammy nom is for a Groove Collective album and not seeing anything that establishes individual notability. S0091 (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also the title should be changed to Jay Rodriguez (musician) as that his is WP:COMMONNAME per sources. Jay Rodriguez already exists about a footballer. S0091 (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Groove Collective. Grammy would establish notability, but less so for a Grammy-nomination where he hasn't yet received the actual award. GuardianH (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of presidents of the National Rifle Association. RL0919 (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Sigler

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

The subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG/WP:BIO. A search turns up no novel citations. Subject was President of the NRAoA (not notable in itself unless he was involved in some major reform/event). Subject also unexpectedly resigned as Delaware GOP Chair (again, no prior notable work or achievements other than "Being Chair". Can't find a source for his appointment/election to that post!). He was not an elected politician/office holder per WP:NPOL. It is unclear how he is notable or that the article can be improved to meet GNG, unless some major achievement or scandal has been overlooked.

WP:PROD was posted and removed on basis that all NRA Presidents have an article, however the user was mistaken - they were looking at a list of NRA Presidents which only included those with a page(!) There appeared to be no other objections to deletion. Hemmers (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, Military, Firearms, Delaware, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect >>>>List of presidents of the National Rifle Association at viable ATD. Djflem (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous vote. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant, in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability. Being president of the NRA obviously does not confer automatic notability. AusLondonder (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vestlandhalle

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

It exists but I couldn't find the sources to show notability. A possible WP:ATD would be redirect to Ruhrfestspiele, though it gets the briefest mention there so I am not sure it is helpful to readers, or if a merge/redirect would unbalance the article. I am also not sure how ambiguous the title is. Boleyn (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Sports, and Germany. CptViraj (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP it's a good article Evangp (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that no rationale was provided by Evangp, who is the article's original creator.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:ILIKEIT arguments are not a valid reason to keep an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:01, 26 February 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) 11:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:NBUILD. Coverage is limited to "this event is happening here" and it's not a very significant building (also German Wikipedia doesn't have a page on it, and they're lighter on notability for some topics). it was only used as one of several backup venues for Ruhrfestspeiele in a 2 year period so I'm not sure it would be a good redirect. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to pass any notability guidelines that I'm aware of. Lacks SIGCOV beyond a passing mention from what I'm finding. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Bourguiba

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

no reliable sources, only database entries found. doesn't meet WP:GNG. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Sweden. CptViraj (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tunisia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Cimadomo

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

only database entries. WP:GNG not met. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Italy. CptViraj (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The player had spells at Napoli and Ascoli, in addition to playing for numerous other clubs. Are there no Italian sources about him? At first I didn't find much on my WP:BEFORE either, but I'm waiting for someone with more information. Svartner (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 26 February 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) 11:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero meaningful sources, extremely poorly written, and no evidence whatsoever of notability. Anwegmann (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Christopher

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

only interview sources, not independent. doesn't meet WP:GNG. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can only find coverage for Christopher Lloyd, doing Doc Brown's lines from Back to the Future. Nothing for this individual Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Boujenah

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

all reliable sources online are about his brother. doesn't meet WP:GNG. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't mean to be rude, but can you please do a better check for this director? Such as a basic Google books search for example. And/or see WP:DIRECTOR, Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for this. there are articles that mainly talk about his brother, but have enough coverage of him, so Wikipedia:DIRECTOR looks okay. withdrawing. could someone close? Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Tunisia. CptViraj (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is this actually withdran or not? Why the relist? @User:Liz @User:Password1233210 --Ouro (blah blah) 13:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Probably enough to build an article, [45], trival coverage but a mention [46], [47]. Here's some discussion of a film [ https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/images/1987-n31-32-images1076311/22081ac/abstract/] and [48] but it won't open for me. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Booth

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

no reliable sources for notability. only database entries/image entries online. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst this article is substantially out of date, there is still not enough to meet notability requirements. MNewnham (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Cherry

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

no sourcing found that can support notability. only database entries/wikipedia copies. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. CptViraj (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles look like it got information from IMDb, which is a not recommended source, but the author decided not to add the reference that they did use it. See Wikipedia:Reliable Sources-⚒️MinecraftPlayer³²¹⚒️ | 💬 23:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CptViraj (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Boisselier

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

No good sourcing I could find. Only database entries and copies of Wikipedia. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please withdraw this. Press XfD on the wrong article. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rodeo Dental & Orthodontics

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

WP:CORP, not yet notable. In a WP:BEFORE search, the only coverage I could find in secondary sources was inclusion in a Fortune "Impact20" list [49], press releases, puff pieces on dentistrytoday.com (for which I can't find evidence of editorial oversight), and a "sponsored content" piece on a local FOX affiliate [50]. The inclusion on the Fortune list, along with the local magazine awards for "Top Dentist" in Fort Worth, is about it for reliable, independent, secondary coverage so far, and I don't think that alone brings it up to WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Texas. Wikishovel (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's always a concern when the author creates an account for the sole purpose of adding a single article MNewnham (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with MNewnham, very strange for a new account to suddenly create a page in one go. As for the sourcing, it is limited with one reference directly from Rodeo & another that is a press release. Another two references only highlight awards/recognition. Not enough comprehensive coverage from third party references.--Porcinipal (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Clavier

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

This person does not have many citations and is only known for allegations of sexual misconduct. Yolandagonzales (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and Christianity. Yolandagonzales (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well not quite. He was the primate of the Anglican Church in America until his resignation in 1995. Additional sources: [51][52]--Jahaza (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does that mean he was closer to "good mates with the Archbishop of Canterbury" than "some vicar in a church"? MNewnham (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, quite the opposite, given the Anglican Church in America is a splinter church that isn't part of the Anglican Communion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Episcopal bishops, like Catholic ones, almost always have enough sources for notability (though sometimes the sources are offline), and this one seems if anything particularly notable.— Moriwen (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moriwen: That is the case with bishops of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA) and other Episcopal churches of the Anglican Communion. However, I have just corrected the article to reflect the fact that the subject is not an ECUSA bishop but is rather part of a Continuing Anglican denomination. Unlike bishops of the Anglican Communion, bishops of obscure splinter denominations cannot be assumed to be notable. Graham (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Keep per reasoning by @Moriwen and @Jahaza. Ominateu (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)~~ striking comment by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richert Vogt von Koch

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

No sources in article, only good source on svwiki is a short mention in Nordisk Familjebok in connection to his father. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for flagging this. I've now inserted a bibliography of this individual's novels and other selected publications. It seems notable that several of these work are available online via Gothenburg University (https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/57909). Andrew.T.Levin (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing in the article is, as AlexandraAVX points out, admittedly weak. The English article just points to the Swedish article, where the sourcing isn't as extensive as the English note claims. But there are other good sources easily accessible, and with this biography in Svenska män och kvinnor : biografisk uppslagsbok and this biography in Svenskt biografiskt handlexikon, we have multiple sources (more extensive than in Nordisk Familjebok) and good proof that he was a person who was repeatedly considered notable enough to be included in various encyclopedic works. /Julle (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Julle for flagging these encyclopedia entries, which have now been added as citations in this wiki page. Andrew.T.Levin (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising these issues. The wikipage for Niels Fabian Helge von Koch (the mathematician who formulated the Koch snowflake) has had a longstanding red link for his father Richart Vogt von Koch, so I added content to that empty wikipage using information from the corresponding Swedish page (https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richert_Vogt_von_Koch). BTW, the editors of the Swedish wiki pages didn't raised any concern that this individual is sufficiently noteworthy as a Swedish historical figure; indeed, the Swedish wikipage includes citations of a number of novels and other publications authored by this individual. Should those novels be listed on the English wikipage? Does it matter whether any of those works have been translated into English? More generally, is it possible for a Swedish historical figure to merit a Swedish wikipage but not an English-language wikipage? BTW, I have 100 edits but not the 500-edit threshold required to use the Wiki Translate Tool (which would automatically convert all of the bibliography entries and references from the Swedish wikipage to the English wikipage). Could either of you recreate this wikipage using that Translate Tool, and then I'll be glad to help ensure that the translation is comprehensible? Again, many thanks!! Andrew.T.Levin (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each language version of Wikipedia decides its own policies and guidelines, so, in principle, it is possible to qualify for a Swedish page but not an English one. As far as the English criteria go it doesn't make any difference whether works have been translated into English, and sources can be in any language. I have not looked at this particular case, except to say that his son is ultra-notable, as anyone who has made even a cursory study of fractals will tell you. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring Swedish Wikipedia, I'd argue Richert Vogt von Koch passes WP:GNG. /Julle (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources identified by Julle above. Mccapra (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per improvements made since now. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The minority of "keep" opinions must be given less weight because they do not address or rebut - by citing appropriate sources - the reason for which deletion is sought, namely, that there is insufficient coverage of the subject by reliable sources (WP:GNG). Sandstein 07:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Burrows (producer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Flagged by someone claiming to be the subject's son, as a self-written vanity page, exaggerated and imbellished to such an extent as to be misinformation. The claim appears to be substantively correct. The only source that actually looks like a source is this about a production he was involved in, but it was a press release in what appears to be a local source, says so at the end. I could not verify many of the claims in the article either in the sources cited or independently. If reliable sources can be identified, I am happy to fix the article but it needs to be deleted if not. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Theatre, California, New Jersey, and New York. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete - there seems to be a general problem verifying the facts here, but even if there wasn't the claims of notability seem thin and I'm not seeing any better refs. JMWt (talk) 07:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Disagree on the "self-written vanity" part. While it was apparently written initially by a colleague, and also contributed to by Rnguyen1 who provided the photo used in the article, during my cleanup, I believe I removed anything that may have been biased. You may elaborate on your concern of misinformation or unverified claims, and I can answer them. Disclosure: I do not know the subject, and I only happened to undelete the page at WP:RfU. Jay 💬 07:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Jay, would you agree that the restaurant, the polo and the personal life of the subject are irrelevant for encyclopedic considerations, that they may be included just because they can be but those are not by themselves knowledge worth knowing? Would you agree that the main issue here is whether or not the subject is notable as a producer? Would you then agree that we need a little bit of significant coverage to presume notability here, given the career happened far enough back but not too far back and in a country that generates a lot of coverage, in an industry that is, whatever the opposite of obscure is? Assuming we broadly agree on the above, the biggest problem I see is that most of the article is based on the presumption that the one self-published profile can be taken at face value. I simply do not think it can, especially in a BLP, especially when its accuracy has been challenged. The next source (the one from the American Film Institute) does not have enough for us to be able to tell that it's even the same person. We can assume they are, but it happens often enough that desparate sources we collate on lesser known individuals based only on a name search ends up creating a composite biography for a person that does not exist. These are not sources we can base a standalone biography on. That leaves the Los Angeles Times piece that is behind a paywall. I do not know what it has, but I suspect it does not have much simply because other sources didn't have much and the one piece that had some content was cited seven times compared to just once for that piece. But if I assume wrong and if it has usable WP:SIGCOV and if there is just one more source that also has SIGCOV, as I said, I would be glad to see one more well-sourced biography on a living person, especially knowing now that the subject was reportedly devastated to learn of its deletion.
  The impression that there is exaggeration in the biography, I get, from among others, the fact that our article says he produced Fire! while the IBDB source says it was "Produced by David Black; Produced in association with Jonathan Burrows". To editors who are partial to retention on the grounds that he produced Fletch, I caution that it should be determined what exactly his role was as can be verified from reliable sources. He is not among the many people that made it into the infobox of our article on that film (in contrast again, to this article's lead's claim that he is best known for producing that film). Generally, one film may be enough for a director or a lead actor, if the film is iconic enough, I do not think it should be for one of many producers, especially since "producer" can mean many things, not all of those imply a creative contribution. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'll respond to the points about "misinformation / unverified". Which is the self-published profile referred to, is it patch.com? You suspect that the person referred to in the American Film Institute source is a different person, and the suspicion arose because the article has been challenged. I agree that additional sources would have helped, but many sources I went through were blogs or interviews that I could not include. I took the Los Angeles Times ref and associated content from Fletch (film)#Development. On producing Fire!, I provided a source other than IBDB that said “Fire on Broadway”, which I assumed was a typo with quotes for “Fire" on Broadway. I agree in hindsight that "in association with" should have equated to "co-produced" or something of the sort. Jay 💬 13:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I have some experience improving articles that I decided against AFDing with what sources were there and what I could find. I would not expect to be held responsible for every little detail I miss when doing so. Indeed, that is how we are supposed to build this encyclopedia. I would have left the article entirely alone but for my misgivings about the patch.com piece. If only we could take the claims in there at face value, the worries about verification would be minor. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I removed the line referenced from the Los Angeles Times because the article did not mention Burrows at all, much less him shopping the film around in Hollywood. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 16:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  OK. I have tagged a citation needed for this at the Fletch article. Jay 💬 04:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also see, Talk:Jonathan Burrows (producer)#Reddit "Campaign". Jay 💬 08:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think it matters. They are not brigading; they seem largely in disagreement with OP, and most of them don't see anything wrong with the article. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could not see significant coverage in RS. I do not know if there is coverage in older and offline books or magazines. The article had been soft deleted earlier, and the person who requested undeletion had suggested there are sources, but a lot of what I found was self-published content. Jay 💬 13:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This seems like an attempt on character assassination by the person’s alleged son. Also, this article was active for quite some time and it was not a subject of debate all the time it stayed relevant. I just checked the talk page and there certainly have been a few very real participants suggesting additions to this article. Moreover, it also says that the person bought rights and produced fletch. The sources provided in the article are also verifiable, just not notable. You could argue to delete this just because it do3s not meet the notability criteria, disregarding the other information, but I think this article has its value of information, that should be preserved. I don’t see the point in deleting this article to be honest. RoundStrider (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The article's subject meets notability criteria on a couple bases, it reads unbiased nowadays, and there is reasonable evidence showing long term effort toward continuous improvement on this article. Deleting the article would not be a constructive removal given the individual's contributions toward many notable works under arts and entertainment and particularly destructive considering the apparent campaign coming from outside sources/people/sites to influence its removal. Pedantical (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PRODUCER. Criteria 1 and 2 do not apply. As for Criteria 3 and 4, Fire! was not a notable theatre production. He also did not produce Fletch; the source merely says a production company bought the rights for it and didn't even end up producing the film. IMDB says his credit on the film is "Produced by Special Arrangement," under "additional crew"; this is not notable either, particularly if it simply means that his production company allowed another to use the rights. As for the list of theatre productions, "working as a production executive" on those isn't notable. Also, everything relies on one source, and while Patch may be reliable, the article is evidently promotional in nature: ^[1]. The wording is identical to Mr. Burrows' bio on the promotional site for Can-Can. As for the restaurant and polo stuff, mere mentions of him in articles that aren't about him at all don't make him notable. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 16:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the Patch page, it says the information was supplied by the press and PR department of the playhouse. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to clear up a few things about the way I feel about this article. My father is a well intentioned elderly gentleman who has been retired for about twenty five years, and who is unfamiliar with how wikipedia works. He wrote his own page and I stupidly felt a bit of second hand embarrassment from the way in which it was written. Ironically, I have opened a can of worms on myself and more and more people are checking out his page. I am sure this would make my father very happy, and he is having a rather rough time now, so this has made me happy and changed my perspective on the whole matter. I believe his work attempting to get Fletch produced is notable enough. Basically all I wanted cleared up with some irrelevant details about his personal life out of an overabundant and rather neurotic desire for privacy. I would like to offer my apologies, as well as my thanks, to the diligent people of wikipedia for their work on this trivial matter, as well as for all you guys do. Basically, I just wanted to protect my poor old Pops from putting too much about himself on the internet. Zanelburrows (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Everson, Emily (2014-09-21). "Papermill to Open the Season With Rousing Production of "Can-Can"". Millburn-Short Hills, NJ Patch. Retrieved October 26, 2018.

Delete. This person was a producer on only one film (or was he?), and an "associate producer" on another, which was a flop. He produced only one Broadway show (which ran for only 6 regular performances), two off-Broadway shows, one tour of an off-Broadway show (although none of the off-Broadway credits is verified) and later one regional theatre production. All of his other "producing" was as a "production executive". He was not a significant creator (only ever writing one short film). There is only one source cited for his producing, and it is from Patch.com. His ownership of the barbecue restaurant would also be, IMO, WP:MILL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is only mentioned in 2 paragraphs in the production section for the film Fletch, where it is mentioned that it was co-produced by his brother, Peter Douglas. Abdullah raji (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Douglas is the half-brother of Michael Douglas. Jay 💬 11:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's plenty of coverage of his restaurants [53] and [54] in Gbooks, seems to be a choreographer with the same name that is discussed at length, but I'm unsure if it's even the same person [55] or this [56]; if it is the choreographer, we're likely at GNG, if not, I'm not sure... Oaktree b (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The choreographer has his own bio here in Wiki, so it's not this person. I just don't see enough in RS that talk about this producer person. The restaurant bits are trivial, rest seems to be a person that worked for a long time in their field but never gained much notability (as far as wiki is concerned anyway). Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's rather interesting but I don't see the sourcing to back up notability by Wikipedia standards. I did see the quote about shopping around Fletch to movie studios in a one line mention in a Quillette article, but it's a trivial mention, and of course as an opinion site that's not a reliable source anyway. Happy to revisit if someone finds better sourcing, but absent that I'm at Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCER. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rider deaths in British motorcycle racing series

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominated for the case of WP:LC. We have the main list of those who died globally, so how necessary is a list like this? Since the last nomination in 2012, I doubt anything has been addressed. Many of those listed are from club championships. I cannot see this unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT list of mostly non-notable riders dying, appealing to those but to the most obsessive motorsport fans. Also, not notable enough to pass WP:LISTN. In short, Wikipedia is neither Motorsport Memorial (whom most are sourced from per WP:1R, albeit poorly) nor is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Motorsport, and United Kingdom. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nominator's rationale EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable sub-list, identical reasoning to a similar recently-deleted article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Driver deaths in British motorsport series

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominated for the case of WP:LC. We have the main list of those who died globally so how necessary are a list like this? Since the last nomination in 2011, I doubt anything has been addressed. Many of those listed are from club championships. If this was narrowed down to bluelinked drivers as recommended in the last AfD, this would make just 3, meaning we have a list of non-notable drivers. I cannot see this unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT list appealing to those but to the most obsessive motorsport fans. Also, not notable enough to pass WP:LISTN. In short, Wikipedia is neither Motsport Memorial (whom most are sourced from per WP:1R, abeit poorly) nor is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Motorsport, and United Kingdom. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: List of non-notable people that fails WP:LISTN; has not been discussed as a group in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per the rationale of the nominator EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Association for Information Systems as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 01:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AISINDO

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

The organization existed, but the organization is not notable enough per WP:NORG. Google searches showed multiple passing mentions - this organization conducted forums and meetings, but none has shown in-depth coverage. The parent organization Association for Information Systems is notable, but the organization in Indonesia isn't notable enough. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, Computing, and Indonesia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment redirect to Association for Information Systems or try to find sources and keep the page. NiLok223 (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added recently one source. Maybe more good are still somewhere NiLok223 (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid bin Sultan bin Zayed Al Nahyan

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

I previously erroneously believed that this person was the same person as Khaled bin Mohamed Al Nahyan, now the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi. Since they are in fact different people, I don’t think this Khalid passes WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Uhooep (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.

2601:249:9301:D570:E2:2A03:BDFF:6814 (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. We don't create articles on people simply because they are members of a ruling/royal family. Independent notability must be established. Keivan.f^Talk 21:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaczemir

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

PROD removed. Fails WP:NNAME, WP:NOTDICT and WP:GNG. Has no WP:SIGCOV, as I cannot find any reliable sources outside of dictionaries and databases. The only person listed is an unnotable fictional character. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, namecruft, not suitable for an encyclopedia. Geschichte (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NNAME. Would be better on Wiktionary. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Machine to machine. If you disagree with this redirect target article, please start a talk page discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M2Mi Corporation

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

All links on the page are dead. A WP:BEFORE found mentions but nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Could possibly see this being a redirect to OASIS (organization). CNMall41 (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and California. CNMall41 (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OASIS (organization): per nom. I found some coverage from Google books and scholars but unfortunately none of them seem significant enough 94rain ^Talk 05:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Machine to machine: M2Mi is not mentioned in the OASIS (organization) article so it doesn't make sense to redirect it there but they are mentioned at Machine to machine regarding the partnership with NASA. Pinging @CNMall41: and @94rain: for their thoughts about the target. S0091 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about OASIS. I looked closer ant it appears M2Mi helped developed the OASIS standard MQTT. That could also possiblty be a target after adding a mention of the company. Either way is fine as long as this page is gone as I do not see it being independently notable.--CNMall41 (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also fine with delete. S0091 (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There are two different Redirect target articles being proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. IABOT was able to add archived versions of two of the article's references. When you are considering bringing an article with dead references to AfD, it is usually a good idea to run IABOT to try to salvage those references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Normally I'd opt for a redirect, but this company is not *connected* with either of the suggested redirect targets - it was a research company that participated in projects, but still an entirely separate company. There's also nothing to suggest it was influential in its field. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 14:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify A quick google search shows this article can eventually become notable, and there may be enough secondary sources to do so now. The way it currently is, it's not ready for mainspace. DarmaniLink (talk),

We need more information. What did you find in the Google search that showed the topic might/can eventually become notable?? As it is, this comment is an empty !vote with zero reasoning. HighKing 18:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[57]https://thesiliconreview.com/magazine/profile/machine-to-machine-intelligence-m2mi-corporation-the-most-advanced-and-secure-m2m-iot-platform-provider - from 2021

[58]https://appel.nasa.gov/2010/02/28/ao_2-4_f_ames-html/ - from 2010

Looking at their website, they also had some brief mentions in tech magazines for awards, AFAICT. Unless there's something I overlooked, this could become notable. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those references are nothing more than company marketing. Silicon Review is a "magazine" where company's boast about themselves and their offerings, not reliable. This article doesn't even have a journalist mentioned. The other reference is a joint Press Release. Both of those references miserably fail WP:NCORP criteria. We don't write article for companies that "could" become notable, the test is that they are notable now or have been in the past. HighKing 12:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with HighKing's assessment. The Silicon Review is a trade publication and the article is a "profile" which is essentially what the company says about itself. Same for APPEL; it's a press release and contains statements about what they say they will do or what could happen (published in 2007, though the link uses 2010). S0091 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Machine to machine, learn something new every day. Good to know. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christ the King Church (Trumbull, Connecticut)

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

Does not appear to meet relevant notability standards; run-of-the-mill parish church, no significant coverage I could find. — Moriwen (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Christianity. — Moriwen (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As a litmus test, I checked the local rag, which returned few results beyond obituaries detailing funeral services. I found an article on the diocesan website, but in a few minutes' Google search, that was sadly about it. The article attributes the church to architect J. Gerald Phelan; that attribution returns no results on Google. As a WP:ATD, I would not be opposed to a redirect to Trumbull, Connecticut#Places of worship, where the church is curiously not listed, but could justify a sentence or two. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be one of many RC churches in Connecticut created by the same contributor that have been tagged for deletion. Per IgnatiusofLondon, an entry in Connneticut#places of worship should suffice MNewnham (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mimsville, Georgia

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

unnotable ghost town. cited to databases. ltb d l (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Georgia (U.S. state). ltb d l (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet more GNIS-import fake ghost-townery. The contemporary USPS directory has this as a post office in Baker, and Brimley reporting things near to the post office in 1910, which I suspect people are going to use for the usual fallacious "near XYZ" argument, doesn't magically make it more than a post office. Furthermore if USGS Water-Supply Paper 339 supported this being a town or a village, it would actually say that as it does for Newton and Elmodel in Baker, rather than more "near Mimmsville". Uncle G (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What fresh hell is this? https://www.hometownapparel.com/towns/georgia/mimsville/mimsville-georgia-classic-established-mens-cotton-tshirt/black/915912/A1?path=29821_31227_127598&ink=WT Looks like GNIS gets printed on Tshirts now.James.folsom (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after making sure the community is listed on county page I already know that rural Georgia is not sufficiently covered by newspapers. So I cannot rely on that source. The Atlanta paper mentions it as a community a few times. This is the best mention, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-savannah-morning-news-mimsville/140827964/, it establishes the existence of a named community prior to the post office. This website lists it as a community. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Baker_County,_Georgia. I feel like I've heard of it. But it doesn't have enough reliable sources to merit an article.James.folsom (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Baker County, Georgia. This appears to be another post village (but could be a poorly-attested town, per James.folsom), with some relevance to the history of the surrounding rural area (best described in the Baker County article), but there's no clear evidence for notability in its own right. Jbt89 (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a lot of hits regarding different recorded specimens there. A list of Yale graduates said George King moved to a farm near there and began collecting reptiles, so perhaps that explains it. SportingFlyer T·C 00:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete I see no reason to point this probably-just-a-post-office to the county article. It's not a notable place, and we don't have a definite character for it. Mangoe (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mangoe. I really don't understand why people want to merge/redirect these stubs, when the merge target has no mention of the subject (or mentions it only as an item in a bulleted list, as is the case for Baker County, Georgia), nor any relevant section where the information would fit without being WP:UNDUE...particularly when all the information we have about this place is from trivial passing mentions in databases and gazetteer tables. That just introduces confusion and irrelevant clutter. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The merge redirect doesn't have to be that way. I was just for making sure that this vague community is listed on the county page and redirect the article there. I agree that GNIS crap should be dumped on the floor. I believe some editors also place value on all contributions no matter how useless they were. In those cases redirect at least preserves those. So, I think that's why you get that also. Another thing that's on my mind is many of these counties are not much more than stubs anyway, so if the even lesser known communities get listed there, then somebody could add a little info about each minor community. I've always thought it would be good to just list the unincorporated communities that actually exist but have few good sources on the county page with a little paragraph about. That just makes a better article in general, and I don't understand why so many editors prefer they have their own articles. James.folsom (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael Technical School, Surakarta

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

The school existed, but the school didn't pass WP:NORG. There are some news articles concerning the school - their students won some competitions but that does not confer automatic notability, especially as the competition is not notable as well. None of the search results showed any coverage about the school in depth. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Indonesia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and no source provided ever since creation. Also per nominator, passing reference is not a point for qualifying WP:V. CSMention269 (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, were these search results in English or the local language? Cardofk (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I just thought I'd add, due to the comment about an "ecosystem", that over the past 3 months, through PRODs and AFDs, we have deleted dozens of articles on these low power TV stations. So, this is just one of many articles in this subject area that have been deleted in 2023-2024. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K34HO-D

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I freely admit to not understanding the subject matter, but there appears to whole Wikipedia ecosystem around these low power television stations that seem to bubble up for a few years, somemes as a notable station, e.g. Univision and sometimes not. It seems to me that keeping the whole of the system intact is a much better resource than one with holes in it. MNewnham (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Minnesota. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there were an article on UHF-TV Inc., this would be a candidate to be redirected there. There isn't. Most coverage would be at the system level. As a "stack-lator", there is no appropriate redirect target. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Federal Highway 28

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

Another Mexican highway that I can't verify exists. There's no information about where it is in the article, the only source is to a general map of Mexico that doesn't seem to have a Highway 28, and I can't find any other sources to confirm it exists. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fictional highway, as per Fandom: [59]. No, that's not a RS, but all other sources found are WP mirrors, meaning that we're creating misinformation by keeping this article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never meant as a hoax (I kind of doubt @Dr. Blofeld: even remembers creating it sixteen years later), but created in bulk and in error when all the MFH articles were likely created (as we did in bulk for MFH shield images), but never assigned to an actual route; there is no matching article on es.wiki, which would have long been created by now. Nate • (chatter) 03:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was reading off a list of red links, plus File:Carretera federal 28.svg exists. According to Bing maps there is a Carretera Federal 28 in Playa del Carmen, Quintana Roo, Mexico, but doesn't look like a national highway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination.

GeographicAccountant (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to failing WP:V. I looked for reliable sources that proved it exists and could not locate any. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian-Polish conflict in Volhynia

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

WP:FORK of Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. Any Polish-Ukrainian conflict in Volhynia was caused by the genocidal action of the OUN-UPA against the Polish population and took place in parallel. The "clashes" mentioned in the article were attempts by Polish villages to defend themselves against UPA units.

The article hardly quotes any sources. Some of the wording is misleading: "The Polish organised underground was re-established after the German occupation of Western Ukraine, but its armed formations, as a real force, emerged only in the first half of 1943. The organisation and activities of the Polish underground with their armed formations was one of the reasons for the creation of the UPA." In fact, the UPA partisans (which later transformed into the UPA) were formed as early as October 1942; they took up armed actions in early February 1943. At that point there were no Polish units in Volhynia; these were only formed as self-defence formations against UPA attacks.

He does not propose a merger, because everything of value in the article is already in the article on massacres. Marcelus (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the massacres doesn't mention the organisation of the Polish self defense or their battles with the UPA Olek Novy (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searching "self-defence" or "self-defense" within the article gives 23 results, most in relation to their attempts to prevent OUN-UPA massacres (wouldn't call it "battles"). Marcelus (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does this. But doesen't mention all of their engagements with the UPA. The Article barely mentions the Blue Police Olek Novy (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it mention Blue Police if there was no Blue Police in Volhynia? It was only limited to General Government in its 1939 borders. Marcelus (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were auxiliary police units in Volhynia take example: Schutzmannschaft Battalion 202 Olek Novy (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came into a conclusion that the article can be deleted. Overall i can just add some engagements to the article about the MAssacres on Poles. Olek Novy (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So please post your vote if you may Marcelus (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As written, POVFORK. Incorrect pl wiki which is about pl:Polska samoobrona na Wołyniu Polish self-defence structure (ditto for ru, uk and cs: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11822456). That (Polish self-defence) is likely notable, but the focus is wrong with our article, as the nom correctly notes. Maybe this could be rewritten. Maybe @Dreamcatcher25 would like to comment? I am leaning delete now due to POVFORK issues. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice wrong interwiki before, removed it now, I think that's uncontroversial Marcelus (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have consensus here? Even author of the article agrees it should be deleted, I see no reason for further relists Marcelus (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Nipple stimulation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nipple play

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

Article contains no proper references or in-line citations and appears to utilize a large language model for the majority of the text. In its current state, the article should either be soft deleted, or moved to draft space. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very familiar with the topic area, but this also may be suitable for a redirect to Nipple stimulation. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any properly sourced content with Nipple stimulation and properly redirect. Synonyms. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nipple stimulation: as a content fork. Owen× ☎ 13:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nipple stimulation: obvious content fork. Need a better section in that main article on erotic nipple techniques. Some of the content of this article could be used for that section. The mergeto article seems unbalanced and focuses more on LGBT/lesbian sexual contact rather than man/woman nipple stimulation based on the photos in the article. This present article seems more focused on generally man/woman sexual techniques. Need some images and content showing male/female contact in the mergeto article if merged. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources may hold some value, though none are directly cited, sadly. Because of this, not sure what could be merged. Out of personal opinion regarding the topic of general sexuality, I'll refrain from further comment on any new content added to Nipple stimulation. I leave that to editors interested in the topic. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a stab at merging some of this content into the other article. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merged what content was backed up by sources and seemed relevant to Nipple stimulation. This article can be redirected to the mergeto at afd close if consensus is to merge, which seems to be leaning that way. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. BusterD (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1905 Bennett Medical football team

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

Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Of the current sources, they are either a passing mention (#1), databases (#2 and #5), and routine game previews/recaps (#3, #4, #6, and #7). Let'srun (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Illinois. Let'srun (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep To be honest this probably belongs in a list of Bennett Medical football team seasons instead of being a stand-alone page as it's barely a "season" but not only is this the only Bennett Medical football season currently on the web site I do think there's just enough sourcing there. SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources do you think meet the WP:GNG for this season specifically? If you or someone else wants to draftify this for a potential combined season article, be my guest (although I am somewhat skeptical). Let'srun (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The game recaps meet GNG to me since this is a season article and it's been shown their games generated coverage. It's also a contextual argument, it probably wouldn't be enough if the same articles were around in 2023, but that is good 1905-era coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has some similarity to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1904 Toledo Athletic Association football team. Both were created as part of an ambitious campaign by User:Murphanian777 to create articles on every opponent of Notre Dame. While I appreciate Murphanian's desire to be thorough, notability is not inherited by virtue of having played a game against Notre Dame (particularly in early years when Notre Dame scheduled games against many small-school patsies). Accordingly, we need to see SIGCOV of the Bennett team in order to keep this. The best sources cited in the article are this and this which are very brief game summaries. Mostly we have game scores (e.g., this) or database entries (e.g., this). I end up leaning "delete" when I also consider that (a) Bennett Medical School was not a particularly notable institution or football program (no parent articles on either), (b) there was nothing particularly remarkable about the 1905 team which compiled a 1–1–2 record, and (c) the article is a sub-stub with one short sentence of narrative text. All that said, I have no objection to draftification if Murphanian or someone else steps forward indicating a desire to take time to work to improve the article in draft space. Cbl62 (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If not kept, request userfy - may eventually get to creating something to contain this season article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Monster Club

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

Can't find enough significant sources about this project for it to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Most sources are either too short or mainly focus on another project by Bobby Aherne. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 16:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ireland. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 16:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep on this one - there are several independent citations referenced in the article to demonstrate compliance with WP:NMUSIC, including a staff bio with Allmusic, and a number of album reviews. ResonantDis_tortion 14:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added reviews by GoldenPlec and State (magazine) I found at the fr article. S0091 (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If Bobby Aherne is not notable enough to warrant a page, then how can a side-project of said musician need one. If he is, then create one and merge this page into that. MNewnham (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what that means. A band can be notable even if individual members of the band aren't. Toughpigs (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with @Toughpigs - this AfD is focused on whether the band No Monster Club meets notability guidelines, primarily through analysis of available independent coverage. If an editor considers Bobby Aherne as independently notable then they can create a separate page. ResonantDis_tortion 19:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This review from the Dublin Gazette and the reviews added by S0091 are decent coverage. Toughpigs (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of reliable sources coverage referenced in the article such as the Irish Times, Chicago Reader, Dublin Gazette, AllMusic and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Golf on NBC#Commentators. Star Mississippi 01:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBC Sports golf commentators

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST and is a case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Let'srun (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, and Golf. Let'srun (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Golf on NBC#Commentators. It's trivial, but still somewhat useful. Conyo14 (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Golf on NBC#Commentators per Conyo14's good idea. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Daystar Television Network stations as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 01:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KPCE-LD

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. A 2019 AfD closed as no consensus, but that was under the old presumption that all licenced television stations are notable, which is no longer the case. Let'srun (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arizona. Let'srun (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Daystar Television Network stations: it appears to have never actually carried anything other than Daystar, even before its parent entity acquired the station. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A little reply: Are we going to put AfD requests to (most) low-power stations? Because I don't really see a lot of AfD requests on Full-Power stations meaning I think that Wikipedia doesn't want Low-Power Stations anymore since a lot of them are often stubs. Just sayin'... mer764KCTV^(Talk) 19:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- The moment the 2021 NMEDIA RfC returned the result it did, this was the likely result. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It makes sense, but I'm seeing a lot of Low-Power Stations getting put with AfDs and its starting to confuse and slightly frighten me. mer764KCTV^(Talk) 00:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mabuhay Channel

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

I can't find any siginficant coverage about the subject in reliable sources. PROD was contested claiming that notability, which the subject lacks, is not temporary. Israel's Son 04:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Israel's Son 04:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BEFORE search found no WP:SIGCOV indeed. So, this channel fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Garcia (politician)

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

Unnotable mayor of a relatively small city, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - a relevant local mayor of significance. Many other local mayors are listed. Jg10101 (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify what you mean by “relevant”. Could you point to actual sources? Almost zero independent, significant coverage was found. “Many other local mayors are listed”–Ok? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost all the coverage is WP:ROTM coverage as a councillor/mayor or about his misdemeanor charge for trying to influence a government decision [60] which isn't really an unusal thing for a politician for WP:CRIME #2. Not meeting WP:GNG or WP:NPOL Shaws username . talk . 15:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Beilke

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

Unnotable mayor of a relatively small city, fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL and WP:NCRIME. This might be something but I don't believe it meets the threshold of notability. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:20, 19 February 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 February 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, possibly unsourced BLP (unless someone else can open the source.) SportingFlyer T·C 10:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the secondary sources are all fairly WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN. The criminal activity [61] [62] [63] also seems to fail WP:CRIME and not notable either. Shaws username . talk . 20:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Industrial robot. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 8373

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. BEFORE pulled up no sources. DrowssapSMM 04:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. DrowssapSMM 04:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and redirect to Industrial robot. As far as standards go this one is rather minor, I don't believe it warrants its own article. It just lists definitions of robots, their types, modes of movement, components, etc. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Industrial robot: where it is cited, but not yet mentioned. I agree with Ouro that this standard isn't notable enough to have its own page. Owen× ☎ 13:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to HiT TV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ya krasivaya

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

Show does not seem to be notable based on Google search. Only source in article is an interview with the winner. Spinixster (chat!) 03:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Russia. Spinixster (chat!) 03:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vietnamese Wikipedia has been article of delete and the results was delete. Mohammed07102007 (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HiT TV as an alternative to deletion. BusterD (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capo Geezy

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

Article reads like an advertisement. There's also this extremely long "Quotes of Capo Geezy" section. I also couldn't find many reliable sources for him. ‍ Relativity 03:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Bibliographies, and Music. ‍ Relativity 03:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an advertisement. Capo Geezy is a artist who contributed to the state of Idaho in notoriety. He has 630,000 followers on Instagram and has collaborated with many famous rappers. Everything in the above stated is correct. 130.18.104.156 (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huge Capo fan. https://www.reddit.com/r/capogeezy/comments/ygczv4/rcapogeezy_lounge/

His lyrics are published all over Genius. Not advertising Capo. He is at massive risk for confusion, due to the multiple Capo's and a page should be written about him and his contributions. Iamcapobroquard (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should stay up because it has potential to be founded and built upon over time, due to the fact he is early in his career and is known/famous worldwide. Although, he is not listened to much for his music besides a few songs.

https://www.instagram.com/capogeezy/?hl=en

He is a established figure on Instagram his main platform, due to the presence and success he has had and or to the risk of impersonation and the hundred or so fan pages of him. Iamcapobroquard (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is known for posting long quotes on his Instagram Stories and Snapchat Stories @iamcapogeezy, that are worth of note when writing about him, life and outlook. Iamcapobroquard (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamcapobroquard Are you related in any way to this account? User:Iamcapogeezy ‍ Relativity 04:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Sir. Iamcapobroquard (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he tried to make a page about himself in the past, when he first became known in Europe based on what he posted in August of last year. At this point, I believe a article should stand about him, due to the relative nature of his achievements, contributions, with the mass amount of people knowing who he is and the potential for a longer and expanded page depending on what he does in the future. Iamcapobroquard (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I already fear what I may be getting myself into but here we go. The article is 100% promotional and a disaster and within minutes of its nomination, the AfD discussion is being bludgeoned by multiple accounts with a clear conflict of interest. No sources found to indicate notability and no sources listed in the article are worth anything in that regard. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~I may also suggest an SPI. Not sure if we should go that far but it's a suggestion. At the least an admin needs to see this.~~ AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamcapogeezy. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen has been contacted out my familiarity with them. Wow; full-blown brigading and likely sockpuppetry has now consumed this thread. Complete lack of understanding or care on the part of every IP address that has commented so far. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Retain/Preserve. Article is not self promotion, and most conflict of interest has been removed. Meeting the guidelines for a neutral perspective. Dantecolombo4 (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)(

Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

The presence and activity of a dedicated following for Capo Geezy, as evidenced by edits and interactions on his Wikipedia page, serve as a tangible marker of his notability and relevance in the public domain. Capogeezy90 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC) (

Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Ok, Capo. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AllTheUsernamesAreInUse None of these accounts are him, He's got a lot of impersonators, and that is why he is verified on social platforms. Dantecolombo4 (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Uh huh. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An WP:BEFORE search on this "influential figure in the music and entertainment industry, celebrated for his pioneering work" reveals his social media posts, music streaming upload sites like Soundcloud (34 followers), his YouTube channel (117 subscribers) and other user submitted content. The lengthly quote section in the article contains gems like "It’s a profound endeavor of mine to encapsulate depth, minimize verbosity, and evoke maximal impact." going on to later state "Within the zenith of cognitive eminence, the amalgamation of perspicacity and esoteric lexicon begets an intricate tapestry of ratiocination, where the labyrinthine profundities of ratiocinative acuity coalesce, elucidating an intellectual magnum opus that transcends the vicissitudes of linguistic and cerebrally rigorous terrains." I'm not sure what that means but it sounds important. This WP:AUTOBIO is a good example of WP:SPIP and WP:PROMO and fails to meet notability criteria for WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Netherzone (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to alternatives to deletion, to quote the artiste themself, "Where deficiency persists, prowess must thrive in alternative domains." Netherzone (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps even speedy. G11 with a mix of hoax. Wanky self promotional twaddle lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an overtly promotional article that makes broad claims of fame and influence that are entirely unsupported by factual evidence. Such evidence needs to be presented in the form of references to reliable published sources that are entirely independent of the performer and that also devote significant coverage to the performer. The closing administrator will disregard the ill-informed comments by IPs and new accounts in this discussion that show no understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Love the quotes section though. Will use for next scrabble game. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. - User is stating biased perspective, about potentially stealing the author's quotes, from this deleted page, making him suitable, due to risk of it being stolen or impersonated by others as well.

He is at massive risk for confusion, and needs a individual page highlighting what he is known for, for database and clarity. Dantecolombo4 (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Delete: I found absolutely nothing in terms of secondary sources. Promotional content can be fixed, but without sources to show notability, there's no point. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retain/Keep That is a untrue statement. There are Numerous secondary sources, analyzing and describing his music.

https://oldtimemusic.com/w3/the-meaning-behind-the-song-too-fast-by-capo-geezy/

https://oldtimemusic.com/w2/the-meaning-behind-the-song-demon-girl-by-capo-geezy/

https://www.last.fm/music/Capo Geezy/ wiki

Example. Capogeezy90 (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability requirements. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable at all per Wikipedia's criteria. I'm not even sure it's a serious article. ... discospinster _talk 16:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retain.

The deletion of the page dedicated to Capo Geezy would be an unwarranted action, disregarding the impact and recognition he has garnered within the music industry. Capo Geezy is not merely a public figure but a distinguished musical artist whose contributions have resonated widely, reaching audiences globally, particularly in the United States, and in certain regions of Europe and Africa. His appeal spans a broad age range, captivating listeners from 5 to 30 years old, attesting to his versatility and the universal appeal of his music.

A critical point of contention, the SoundCloud page previously cited with only 34 followers, has been mistakenly linked to Capo Geezy. It is imperative to clarify that this page was, in fact, a fan-made account responsible for leaking his music, and not an official representation of his digital presence. Such an error underscores the importance of verifying the authenticity of sources when evaluating an artist's digital footprint.

Furthermore, Capo Geezy's collaborations with notable figures in the music industry, such as Pooh Shiesty and Juice WRLD, among others, signify his standing and influence within the rap and hip-hop scenes. These collaborations are not merely casual affiliations but are indicative of his skills, creativity, and the respect he commands among his peers.

The recognition of Capo Geezy's lyrics on platforms such as Genius and Old Time Music further cements his position in the music world. Genius, in particular, is renowned for its comprehensive and authoritative coverage of music lyrics and artist backgrounds, serving as a critical resource for fans and researchers alike. The presence of Capo Geezy's work on such a platform speaks volumes about his artistic merit and the impact of his music.

In light of the aforementioned points, it is clear that Capo Geezy's contributions to the music industry and his wide-reaching influence are both significant and well-documented. Removing his page would not only overlook the factual evidence of his prominence but also diminish the resourcefulness of the platform for music enthusiasts seeking information about influential artists. Therefore, it is in the best interest of accuracy and completeness to retain the page dedicated to Capo Geezy, ensuring that his artistic legacy is appropriately recognized and preserved for current and future audiences. Capogeezy90 (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]
Keep. . It's continued presence on our platform is not just beneficial; it's essential for his fans in the states and europe to gather proper information about him for a multitude of reasons. He is very known, but controversial and there needs to be a factual page about him that is neutral or close to it. Dantecolombo4 (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Comment: Now I'm sure it's not serious. ... discospinster _talk 17:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tool to check for AI generated content is "highly confident" that this was written by AI, with 2% written by a human. Netherzone (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - looks like we've got a couple more ducks have flown in that are quacking "Amidst, the nebulous maelstrom of existential quandaries, wherein the ephemeral dance of circumstance intertwines with the enigmatic tapestry of perception, let us unfurl the ineffable, essence of ontological inquiry, and imbue the labyrinthine corridors of cognition with the transcendental symphony of epistemological exploration." I agree this may be a hoax. Netherzone (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's anything I must thank them for it would for teaching me all these new words. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. - To address concerns regarding professionalism and bias, especially when discussing quotes by Capo Geezy, it's essential to approach the topic with a balanced and respectful perspective. This involves acknowledging the importance of preserving the integrity of the article while carefully examining the significance of his quotes. In doing so, we strive to maintain a professional demeanor, ensuring that our discussion is free from bias and respects the contributions of Capo Geezy to the discourse at hand. By focusing on the content and context of his statements, we can provide a comprehensive analysis that honors the value of his words without compromising the standards of professionalism. Dantecolombo4 (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)(

Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

The tool to detect AI/LLC shows it is 97% confident that this comment was AI generated. Netherzone (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find a single reliable source referencing him or anything he's done, even in passing. There are no news results for him. Anything I can find is either primary, user-generated or not from a reliable source. Shaws username . talk . 20:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable whatsoever. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet notability criteria. Johnnie Bob (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quack!!! There's already a billion self-promotional sites out there, so just keep us out of it. Good luck to the dude as he tries to make a living as an influencer by plastering himself all over social media, but I suggest finding a web designer who is better at Photoshop. I once wore a shirt with flower pattern and I know what "epistemological" means, but somehow that has never been reported by reliable media and therefore there is no material with which to build an encyclopedic article about me. But I could say that I'm already an "influential figure" with "pioneering work" and this dude would totally believe me. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, page is full of obviously false uncited achievements, and this deletion discussion is getting spammed by LLM-written sockpuppets. Quack.FPTI (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fond My Mind

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

Article has no notable sources and topic itself is not notable as well Pyraminxsolver (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of meeting WP:GNG ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there merit in merging it with Lostwave? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they are any reliable sources about this, then possibly Pyraminxsolver (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Dance, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't seem to find any reliable, independent sources to warrant a merge. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I WP:PRODded this article some time ago, since I could not find a single reliable source that provides significant coverage of the topic (bearing in mind WP:NEXIST), only for it to be undone by Kvng with the argument that it could be merged into Lostwave. I would be willing to go that route if there was even a single reliable source discussing this song. Alas, there is not. If such a merger does occur, I then imagine the following happening:
- The content is tagged as needing citations.
- For lacking citations, the entry is deleted.
- The redirects relating to this song (Fond My Mind, Edde Edman, Andre Nobrega, William Paiva, Feels Like A Wish, Feels Like a Wish, Station K.) go to RfD because there's no information on the page that makes the redirects plausible, leading to someone unsuccessfully pushing to restore the information on the Lostwave page.

As much as I love this song, I unfortunately do not think we are ready for an article on it. I will happily accept undeletion, though, if and when this gets attention from reliable sources. It is a story as fascinating as its sound, and it sucks that it's not getting the attention it deserves. I suppose if someone wants to make this a userspace draft, that's fine by me, too. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 05:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is some excitement about it on Reddit. I have asked the subreddit for help finding sources. ~Kvng (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Margarita Simonyan. Owen× ☎ 20:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobroedka

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

this is really not notable at all. It's about petty conflict between Alexei Navalny and Margarita Simonyan (the articles referenced are mostly about "why Alexei Navalny calls Margarita Simonyan beaver-eater"). So it's an article about Internet drama, is that necessarily notable? Part of the article isn't even about this term, just about Simonyan being petty to Navalny. The article is also very badly written and meant to promote a certain point of view, which is not what Wikipedia is about. At best this might be redirected to Simonyan's page. Jaguarnik (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Internet, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anything is both reliably sourced and due then it can be merged with Margarita Simonyan and redirected. Otherwise delete. We don't need two articles about the same person, one under her real name and another under a nick-name. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Margarita Simonyan - I'm concerned about this as a POV fork, and see no reason we can't cover this meme on Simonyan's page in its own section. Suriname0 (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If anyone is able to find sufficient source material to make this potentially viable, we can certainly talk about moving to a draft at that point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zehra Bajraktarević

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks sufficient coverage in independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Newspaper sources cited in the article are interviews. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only in Bosnian article it seems

https://bs.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zehra_Bajraktarević#/search ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - article was previously deleted from en wiki: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zehra Bajraktarević and the original article's author supported the deletion. OIM20 (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Weak keep. 195,000 hits on Google suggest notability and potential for other sources. The one article appears to be an interview but only a portion of it is accessible online, so we don't know for sure. She also appears to be included in a few books; however, they are not translatable to English to review. Rublamb (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to AfC / Draftify. I realize this was translated from the Bosnian Wiki, but it doesn't feel like a complete article.

Analysis of available online resources:

My search only got 141K according to Google (and after clicking "show omitted", it only gave me 119K). Going through the 177 it let me scroll through before it told me I needed to click the "show omitted results" button, 129 of those were YouTube links. Only two that I saw went to news sites: one was a photo only, and one was an interview with someone who knows her. I saw at least two that were announcements of (at the time) upcoming events (ex). Some were announcements of (at the time) new releases (ex). Some of the YouTube and TikTok (22 of the 177) were of people doing covers of her songs. Other links were to lyric sites or places to listen to her music that aren't YouTube or TikTok. One was to a site that claims to have taken its information from biografija.org, but I searched of that site (to hopefully find sources) and couldn't find the article for her.

Several of the Google Books results were for materials that couldn't possibly include her (e.g.: The Most In-Depth Hacker's Guide and Hillary Clinton's How I Lost; and a search inside those showed no results so I don't know why Google would return them).

I did not find any resources when searching Internet Archive.

All of that said, I did go through all of the sites listed as Bosnian newspapers here, and found a few articles that do indicate notability, but unfortunately don't have much information.

-https://bosnjaci.net/prilog.php?pid=56417 -- brief mention as getting her start through the Bihac festival. It's an interview with Dilvad Felić Dado, creator of the festival.

-https://bosnjaci.net/prilog.php?pid=59730 -- interview where she states that she has been largely ignored by the media.

-https://bljesak.info/kultura/glazba/poslusajte-pjesmu-hiljadarka-iz-istoimenog-filma/134055 -- if I'm reading this correctly, the article's author calls her the doyen of Bosnia, which would definitely give her notability with her target audience.

-https://express.ba/izdvojeno/180682/mujo-isanovic-da-sam-bio-zaljubljen-u-zehru-bajraktarevic-ozenio-bih-je/ (also one of the Google news results) -- interview with Mujo Isanović where he states she was the "role model of Eastern Bosnia"

-https://www.klix.ba/magazin/kultura/koncert-ede-pandura-na-bascarsijskim-nocima/110722047 -- one of the artists listed performing alongside Eda Pandur.

-https://www.klix.ba/magazin/kultura/bascarsijske-noci-zavrsavaju-koncertom-sevdaha/120730068 -- one of the artists performing at the festival listed.

I haven't gone through all of the Serbian newspapers yet. I do wonder if applying US standard for cultural news reporting to foreign countries' standards is wholly fair, but I understand that we can't rely entirely on an interview with the subject of the article for encyclopedic content, which is what this article currently does (Discogs aside). OIM20 (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found One https://www.kkbox.com/sg/en/artist/X_2qON0xnYXJGoI_2s

Gonna Add this now ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not providing significant, independent coverage. I still don't see how WP:GNG is met here. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 21:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 17:19, 10 February 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) 00:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe the subject exists and seems a worthy artist. I'm not seeing any claim of notability. Why should Wikipedia cover this subject compared to other artists? It's not sufficient that the subject is verifiable; there must be direct detailing in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. I've looked at the provided sources, and I agree with the nominator. By my reading, it doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. BusterD (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to AfC / Draftify per OIM20 if @ItsMeGabeProductions wants to work on it more; otherwise delete. Almost but not quite notable. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Guildford Four and Maguire Seven. I see a consensus here to Redirect this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maguire Seven

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

Already covered in Guildford Four and Maguire Seven. Article length at primary topic does not justify a split. Split article creation seems fairly recent, and the subject can be covered with the Guildford Four at the primary article. Redirect to that article looks like the preferred outcome. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 04:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nom. Much of the two topics overlaps. Any valid additions can be made to the combined article. The newly split article already gets on a wrong foot with a strange introduction. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment John Donaldson, of Lymington presided over the trials of the Maguire Seven in 1976 and the Guildford Four in 1975- They are different subjects each meeting the requirements for a unique wiki page. Hazardous to Health (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is the fact that the same judge presided over these two trials an argument for separate Wikipedia articles. The two subjects have a lot of material in common - only the details of the allegations and the original trial - minus the common judge - are different. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, the Maguire Seven are generally covered in the context of the Guildford Four, but not exclusively. A paper from 2022 compares them to the Birmingham Six, as does an academic book from 2019. There's also some coverage in Russian of them as a standalone group of people. I understand the reason to merge here is WP:NOPAGE, but I do think it's possible to have a separate article on the seven without overduplication occurring. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:16, 18 February 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) 02:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guildford Four and Maguire Seven: I see no advantage to keeping the new, inferiorly-sourced page as a content fork. The encyclopedic value of the two cases is combined: anyone looking for one is likely to be interested in the other as well. There's little point in splitting the two and requiring readers to click the "See also:" link. Owen× ☎ 13:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to MC Ren#Film career. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in the Game (film)

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

There is scant evidence that this film exists. The only reference is to an article from a questionable source, which was written after this Wikipedia article was created and, as it only wrote one short paragraph, could have easily been copied from the article itself. Looking at Google results, I cannot find anyone who says that they've seen the film or any coverage from when it was allegedly released in 2005. I found a screenshot of the alleged DVD cover, which has different credits from in the article. The other actors listed don't seem to have any content on them online. As MC Ren was a member of N.W.A, it seems unlikely to me that this film would have been released with such little attention, which makes me suspicious that this is a hoax. As it's hard to prove a hoax, I'll settle for now for saying that there are no good sources for this and it should be deleted. Epa101 (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Epa101 (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this and also that with this source or that one (or both), to MC Ren#Film career, where it is mentioned but with no source. Delete. See below. Happy to change my mind if sources are presented.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that your first source is reliable? I couldn't find a year of publication anywhere. If it's a self-published e-book from recent years, I wouldn't be surprised if it's done a lot of its research on Wikipedia. Epa101 (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that may well be the case. Let's discard it. That leaves us with Bustle, which is, I guess, generally reliable but the quality of the article and the fact that there's only that available (that I could find and if I didn't search that hard, I searched) is indeed suspicious. We could contact Allie Funk at Bustle? And ask if, by any chance, when she wrote her article in August 2015 she didn't base it on WP... As for the soundtrack, you might want to check this. (YouTube (Warning: strong language) (obviously but I feel I have to mention it if others wish to open this) (really not conclusive but uses the same cover) The authors of the 2 WP articles (film (2014), soundtrack (June 2015)) are apparently different but both seem to have an interest in MC Ren (obviously), and the person who inserted the info in the MC Ren page is a 3d one. I don't want to suspect anyone unduly but yes, you're right, it's odd. I'll be cautious and !vote Delete. Maybe see with the Commons users who uploaded the files for the CD and DVD? If it's a hoax, it's "excellent work." Not that elementary....Best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I listened more carefully to the 1st song (other Youtube links show the film poster (#1Hood Movie of the Year)). The 1st song is indeed titled "Lost in the Game". (I'd say there's a pretty good chance this is real) The tracks do correspond to what the article about the soundtrack says, titles, duration, 27 min of music (for a 60 min film, that could make sense). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False alarm, I think, the DVD exists on the usual websites. So I am going to re!vote Redirect this and also that with the Bustle source [64] to MC Ren#Film career, where it is mentioned since 2006 but with no source. I apologise for the trouble.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I've been absent for a few days. I have been busy elsewhere. I'm happy with the suggestion by @Mushy Yank that we redirect it to MC Ren#Film career. Some good research on YouTube too. Epa101 (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MC Ren. I couldn't find anything about this film except for Ebay listings and this article. Cortador (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Meitei traditional polo and pony cultural heritage sites

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

Not a coherent list or article, but a grab-bag of vaguely connected elements. WP:SYNTHESIS. PepperBeast (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Manipur. PepperBeast (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious fluff. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already voted, but as an addendum to my Delete vote, I would note that this is a list article, but it does not seem to satisfy the notability requirements for lists (WP:SAL).

Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary to place any subsequent comments, indented, right below your first comment. That way, your albeit signed and attributed second post doesn't look like more than one person ivoting to casual readers who skim too quickly. (Move this response of mine with it.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how the list claims that a field which does not exist yet is a part of "cultural heritage". Geschichte (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are removed. Thus, the issue that you have noticed is solved. :-) Haoreima (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The article isn't merely a grab bag of anything. It has multiple sources cited for each piece of information provided, in both English as well as Indian languages. --Haoreima (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree: As the nominator mentioned, the issue of being Not a coherent list or article, cannot be justified. Because,

1. the reference this link specifically mentions the connection between Polo and Manipuri Pony, as well as mentions the temple of the god of pony, Marjing.
2. This source mentions the historic Mapal Kangjeibung (Pologround).
3. This source mentions a Statue of Polo Players sitting to preserve the culture.

This list might go on. Each of the sources justify the mention of Polo, Pony, Manipuri (or Meitei) Culture and History. Even, some might argue, modern Polo on Pony was invented in the state of Manipur. So, I don't see any non-coherent or vague compilation of list. As per Brusquedandelion, the list does not fulfill WP:SAL. In that specific policy, it is mentioned that, the all of the entries in a list not necessarily have to be notable as an independednt article, but it seems, in this list, all the entries are notable as independent article as well as have the same connection of being about Polo, Pony, Manipuri Culture. Therefore, I strongly Disagree with the nominator and vote to Keep Nokib Sarkar ^Poke 07:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some articles specifically mentions the connection between Polo and Manipuri Pony, as well as mentions the temple of the god of pony, Marjing really has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. There is already an article on Sagol Kāngjei and that is not the article that is being discussed for deletion here. It is almost a given that any sufficiently long reliable source that discusses this sport will also discuss at least one instance when the sport is played, and in doing so mention one or perhaps several locations where this has happened. But this is not the same as discussing a list of places where the sport is played as a conjunct. You note that the WP:NLIST says all of the entries in a list [do] not necessarily have to be notable as an independednt article, but this was never under dispute with respect to this article and isn't the cruz of my point. Nevertheless, since you seem to believe all the entries are notable as independent article I would strongly rebut this claim. A single mention of a game on a random website is generally not considered to be WP:SIGCOV by Wikipedians who curate and edit sports pages. But this is besides the point: we are not discussing whether each of these events should have a Wikipedia page, we are discussing whether a list of them warrants a Wikipedia page, and for the reasons I have already stated, per WP:NLIST guidelines, they clearly do not. Mentioning other random facts from WP:NLIST that aren't actually relevant here makes me wonder whether you are being intentionally obtuse to confuse the discourse by raising unnecessary and irrelevant issues and thereby impede the consensus-forming process. If that is not the case, I invite you to please consider the points being made rather than posting a kneejerk reaction just because of some sentimental value you have for this article. Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:28, 16 February 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) 02:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to another article. This article sort of meets WP:NLIST as a somewhat coherent list of properly referenced items. I'd vote to keep if I had to but I think merging is preferable. Two potential targets are Meitei culture or Sagol kāngjei#Some important sites. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 07:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another random collection of facts strung together, a tomb and a polo complex are very different things. I don't see the need for this. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b and failure of WP:SAL. Daniel (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add that there were 53 redirects pointing to this article which is an incredibly high number for an article that is this specific. I'm not sure if this is the case with other related articles in this subject area. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes in Meitei culture

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

WP:SYNTHESIS. PepperBeast (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Manipur. PepperBeast (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious fluff. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I don't mean to be confronting or offending anyone's decision. I see that you are worried about WP:SYNTHESIS. However, I believe that mythology about eyes, folktales about eyes, symbols of eyes, etc. are parts of culture related to eyes, in accordance to Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. There are citations and sources which provide enough information about Meitei folktale on eye, Meitei mythology on eye, Meitei perspective on eye, etc. --Haoreima (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have created a bunch of such articles, could you explain if you think Wikipedia merits an article X in Meitei culture for every body part X? Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create articles on everything, or every body parts. I create on the facts supported by sources! Haoreima (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I asked though. Could you answer the question which was asked? Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't fully investigated the article, but I would agree with this statement. So leaning keep. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should actually read the article. Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:42, 16 February 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) 02:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SYNTHESIS. It covers random DYK facts - words with the word mit (eye) in it, eyes of deities, python eye amulets, evil eye, carving Hindu deities' icon's eyes (which is not uniquely Meitei, rather pan-Hindu thing), eyes of dolls, eye actions in a dance form. The section "Divine eyes" is pure SYTH; going through the references; the references are about the deities with 1000 eyes; however the books devote a line or 2 about the eyes in paras about deity overall. There is explicit reference "all-seeing eye".--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 07:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regret, delete per WP:SYNTH. It was really interesting to read the article, but we need evidence of sources in which the role of eyes in Meiti culture is discussed across the various examples presented in the article. The editor(s) who contributed to this article should save their good work and try to get it published somewhere more appropriate, maybe as an article in a local newspaper or historical review journal. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Do we need list of every XYZ thing in Meitei culture? This has more charts than actual prose, and most are simply "here's the word in other languages" without much critical discussion of the XYZ being discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Baku#Museums. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absheron Museum of History and Local Studies

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

I couldn't find sources to show this meets WP:N, or a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if the sourcing in the interwiki links isn't sufficient, add a mention and redirect to Baku#Museums which lists the city's other museums. Star Mississippi 16:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a properly sourced summary to Baku#Museums. Found nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. If sources develop, the history will be here, if someone finds WP:THREE, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 22:32, 18 February 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) 02:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 03:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per the lack of coverage in secondary sources. There are also some formatting errors in the article; I wonder if it might be better draftified but the subject itself doesn't seem to be independently notable. GuardianH (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Armed Forces Central Archive

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have a good WP:ATD. Hard to know if I am missing anything in non-English sources. Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge also unable to find any significant English language coverage. While parts of it could possibly be merged to the Albanian Armed Forces page, I'm not sure where/how it would fit. Shaws username (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for clarity, I'm not trying to say that it should be deleted just becuase there aren't any English sources, merely that I can't find any. If someone has Albaninan sources that give it notability I'd move to keeping it. Shaws username . talk . 17:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect totally non-notable subject, Armed Forces of Albania page may have one line mention on this. --NiLok223 (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State archives are usually notable. Not having English-language sourcing is not a deletion criterion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 13 February 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) 02:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know sources for the English name (which may have been made up for this article) are in short supply. The question is whether there are any sources for the Albanian name. A good starting point for looking would be the Albanian name already in the article: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am severely hampered in my searching by my total ignorance of the Albanian language, but this (in English), this and this may be usable as sources. If this is to be deleted let's do so on the basis of a good-faith search for sources, not because this is "a far away country of which we know little".Phil Bridger (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see the discussion as a valuable platform for enhancing the page and identifying good points. I am quite familiar with Albanian modern history, and particularly the sources within Albania, and I can say that the page deserves to be kept, not merged, with the current sourcing provided. Bager Drukit (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All of the individual sports mentions were removed from this article and then those edits were reverted to return to its current state. Rather than a quick renomination and replay of this AFD, I encourage interested editors to go to the article talk page to discuss which one of those options would serve readers/the project the best. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winning streak

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

Another WP:EXAMPLEFARM WP:LC listing that is more deserving of being listed on lists about individual leagues/championships than a standalone list. If we were going to keep this, then we'll have an article bloated with WP:FANCRUFT entries of everybody's favorite sport. Editors needs to know that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY for your favorite sport; more deserving of an entry in Wikitionary than this per WP:ATD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sports. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified deletion discussion lists

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cue sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Volleyball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Editors needs to know that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY for your favorite sport... and nominators need to know that AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP for your least-favorite article. You haven't given any reason why this fails to meet notability guidelines for inclusion, only that it is poorly written. jp×g 🗯️ 22:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and Conyo14 too. I'm not asking for a cleanup as winning streaks will always happen. I agree with Oaktree b, its best put it out of its misery rather than do something with it as most of those leagues has their own list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Way too long for a list, I'd recommend breaking it out by sport/country/something, and using better inline citations. We don't need to list every streak that has ever happened, all in one extensive list of one-liners. Oaktree b (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. [65], [66], [67], [68]. The rest of the records without sources should be obviously sourced. Conyo14 (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the records without sources should be obviously sourced. — if this is the case, you should go do this yourself if you want to save it so bad. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCLEANUP. Me placing sources there shouldn't matter. The notability already exists. After this AfD, I'll change the article to match more of the terminology than make it just a list. It's not worth my time during an AfD though. Conyo14 (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs a clean up, but seems notable as a well-known term/concept. Giant Snowman 12:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that it is not notable as a well-known term/concept but c'mon, that list is pretty excessive, don't you think? SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - but WP:NOTCLEANUP applies. You've acknowledged the concept is notable, so therefore it should not be deleted. Giant Snowman 19:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as per WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Flibirigit (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally meaningless to have a vast list of winning streaks from sports which are not directly comparable (eg a hurling streak of 21 games which took over four years to complete vs a baseball streak of 26 games which took less than a month). Records about streaks in specific sports should be on appropriate records articles for those sports, and if you strip those out from this article you are just left with a DICTDEF -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of winning streaks in sports, or possibly merge with List of winning streaks with {{main article}} in the respective sections. The concept of a winning streak in sports is well-covered, even in the broadest sense as covering all sports, see "The 33 best streaks in sports history". ESPN.com. 2013-03-28. Retrieved 2024-02-12., "Six of the Best: Winning Streaks". Sports Gazette. 2017-09-19. Retrieved 2024-02-12., Majev, Brendan. "Untouchable: The Greatest Streaks in Sports". Bleacher Report. Retrieved 2024-02-12.. It clearly meets WP:NLIST, and whether or not a stricter set of criteria for inclusion should be applied is a separate issue from whether or not the article should be kept. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – Terminology inherent to various sports with encyclopedic content to be expanded. Svartner (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have nothing against the nomination, because it's reviewing the content on the article, however Winning streak as terminology can be a valid article. It's just the current article is dire. It needs a complete overhaul and stripping right back to the essence of the terminology. Govvy (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above, though the article could do with some cleanup. Govvy raises good points. The Kip 05:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs cleanup per above. I believe List of winning streaks can be merged into this article, but AFD is not the place for such a discussion.
Merge with List of winning streaks. A paragraph on there explaining winning streaks is sufficient, and will help understanding of the topic. But this indiscriminate list is not at all encyclopedic. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with ChrisTheDude above that a list like this should be by sport. Not only that, there should be context within each sport. This is unreadable as it stands and of no use to readers. Alleged notability is not a valid reason to keep such a mess. Batagur baska (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus split between keep/merge and delete, with slightly more in favour of keep. Relisting for more clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hot hand: this comes across as an unencyclopedic WP:LISTCRUFT, created by SYNTH of unrelated events loosely tied by the use of a term for which we already have a Wiktionary entry. While the individual items in the list are sourced, I see no source that ties them all together into a single cohesive topic. The proposed target addresses the phenomenon itself, without including a list of no encyclopedic value. Owen× ☎ 15:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the good reasons listed by editors above. When so many editors issue a Keep or Strong Keep comment there should be no question about closing this down and keeping the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When many of the Keep !votes are of the WP:ILIKEIT type, there absolutely is a question about deleting the article. There is no question about allowing this debate to run its full course. Owen× ☎ 16:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been pointed out that sources exist for each of the entries. There is nothing wrong with "I like it" if sources exist for notability, which is, I think, all the many Keep editors are saying. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've just defined WP:SYNTH - combining multiple sourced items into an agglomeration that isn't sourced. Owen× ☎ 17:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I was thinking of too. What are those keep voters thinking when they voted? don't they care that this list is getting out of control bloated? This is why I said its best to put it out of its misery. If this gets to a no concensus or keep verdict, this marks a new low point of Wikipedia's credibility. SpacedFarmer (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per all keep voting editors above. Clearly notable topic. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I share the same views on rationale as others and don't wish to repeat it" isn't ILIKEIT, maybe come up with a rebuttal to some of the arguments first. Kingsif (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – at its core this is a WP:DICDEF followed by an indiscriminate collection of information which contravenes WP:NOTSTATS. Aspirex (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic of a winning streak is absolutely a notable topic - WP:NOTCLEANUP. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [[69]], [[70]], as well as outside of sports [[71]]. Article needs some work and I share some concerns with the nom about the current state of the article, but as others have already noted, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I agree that List of winning streaks should likely be merged but that is for a different discussion. User:Let'srun 23:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trim article to concept only, removing sports lists: A few points jump out at me:

The concept of a "winning streak" is notable, as illustrated by sources presented by different editors in this discussion. I suspect that there are sufficient sources out there to avoid WP:NOTDICTIONARY.
The trickier questions are:

a) whether Wikipedia should host an indiscriminate list of longest winning streaks, and

b) if so, whether that list should be at this article title.

I think some editors previously contributing to this discussion have cast !votes answering one but not both of these questions, which might render determining consensus difficult if we're talking across each other.

I'm ambivalent on question 2a, though I think it's generous to suggest that a list of longest-winning streaks will be maintained faithfully. But on question 2b, I definitely do not think that the list of winning streaks should be at this article title. My instinct is that Winning streak should be reserved to winning streaks as a concept, with some examples if necessary, while the current article's contents should be redistributed to List of winning streaks and similar articles. For this position, there is no real AfD !vote that suffices, because it's essentially a redistribution of contents away from the article. Whether those contents should be hosted on another page of the encyclopaedia is another question, and one we don't have to discuss at this AfD. Interested editors can retrieve those contents from the page history after a trim, and include elsewhere as appropriate. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This might be an unhelpful exercise, but I've tried to understand previous contributors' views with this framework. This is my understanding of their positions from what they have explicitly said (feel free to amend if you disagree).

1. Is there notability beyond WP:NOTDICTIONARY?

Yes: JPxG, Conyo14, GiantSnowman, Svartner, Govvy, The Kip, Das osmnezz, BeanieFan11, Let'srun and IgnatiusofLondon

No: Flibrigit, ChrisTheDude and Aspirex

2a. Should Wikipedia host an indiscriminate list of longest winning streaks?

Yes: Frank Anchor and Randy Kryn

No: SpacedFarmer, Oaktree b, ChrisTheDude, Govvy, The Kip, Joseph2302, Batagur baska, OwenX and Aspirex

2b. If Wikipedia should host an indiscriminate list of longest winning streaks, should it be at this article title?

Yes: has anyone taken this position explicitly?

No: Govvy, The Kip and IgnatiusofLondon

As the list suggests, editors seem to be discussing either 1 or 2a, but rarely both. The way towards consensus is probably if editors start engaging across the questions... IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean for 2a, I'm whatever. That's just semantics of the article name. Conyo14 (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to Keep per subsequent article revisions. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is too unclear. Giving it another try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 07:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just get rid of all the waffle about swimming etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:E915:1201:490A:FDC7:22A5:C35D (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— 2A00:23C7:E915:1201:490A:FDC7:22A5:C35D (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But obviously it needs clean up. Some of the suggestions in here for that are good ones, and while discussion for the clean-up should be at the listicle talk page, I will say that it at least needs a more indicative title, well-sourced expansion on the concept, and clear inclusion guidelines for the list. Anyway, since it's clearly not any more a dictionary entry than other sports terms, there has been no reason for deletion even provided in creating the nom and it should be a procedural close (or, at this point, a consensus-driven close) for "keep and go discuss improvements at talk". Kingsif (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although this appears to be heading for no consensus which is keep by default. That's a pity. A perfectly good policy reason for deletion was given up front in WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and if you pull the directory out it is just WP:DICDEF. To think of this another way, step back and consider readers of Wikipedia. How does this mishmash of editor curated disparate winning streaks serve a reader's information requirement? If they want to know the longest basketball winning streak, they'll look on a basketball page. If they want to know what a winning streak is, they will be better advised to check wiktionary. If they want to know the longest surf championship streak, longest tiddlywinks streak, or conkers, or dominoes, they are out of luck. This cannot be comprehensive and the list of editor chosen winning streaks fails WP:LISTN. Not a notable collection. This page is not a good fit for Wikipedia nor any encyclopaedia. It should go. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By your argument, the articles on hat-trick, penalty shoot-out, sports season - off the top of my head, among who knows how many others - should go because their primary purpose is to explain a sports concept. Not every article with such primary purpose, however, is a dictionary entry, and !voters should do well to know the difference between a simple definition and an article (or what could be an article) that has encyclopedic purpose for detailing e.g. the history of such concepts, their impact in sports, how they are perceived socially. Nobody is denying that the state of this listicle is awful, but it has potential to be good. Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above keep comments. If you don't like the article (WP:IDONTLIKEIT?), clean it up (trim) or pass on reading it. The article can be rescued. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at all the votes, all the keep voters are circlejerking off each other with not much to say other than agreeing with each other whilst all the delete voters have more to say. I take this sum up sports fans. Circlejerking is the team sport for them when their favorite sport is at off season. If we were to ''clean it up (trim)'' then this will get reverted, telling editors to go to AfD, so here we are. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you have failed to come up with actual responses to !keep votes, none of which are circlejerking [because] their favorite sport is at off season, and while we're at it, all the !delete votes basically seem to agree with your non-reason nomination. Do you want your WP:CIVIL warning now or when you lie about and insult those who disagree with you next? Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The concern about bloat is already solved by the "Table of Contents". Readers can easily find the sport they are interested in. Two valid points of view exist here (see my essay WP:RULEOFTHUMB), and since the Keep point-of-view has a solid number of experienced editors favoring it then it would have among readers as well. Readers come to the page either looking for either something in particular or just to browse to enhance their knowledge of the overall topic "Winning streaks". 46,000 have done so in the last year. Encyclopedic purpose is thus fulfilled by its existence. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Readers can easily find the sport they are interested in. I can't. No sport that I'm interested in is listed. Neither can I see winning streaks in war, in casinos, computer games or anything else. Your rule of thumb essay is not policy. The policy reasons for deletion are clear, and I do not see any policy reasons for retaining this hot mess. I can add tiddlywinks and Fortnite, but editor curation of the list of winning streaks is WP:OR. I am not seeing any policy case for retention, and neither has anyone presented any sources that would show this or any listing would meet WP:LISTN. We can learn nothing by page hits. We do not know that any of those page hits were people satisfying their information requirement, and again, it is not at all clear how any information requirement is met by this. No one is saying there should be no mention of, say, the record basketball winning streaks - but if that is what people are searching for, they will find that and more and better relevant and targeted information on those pages rather than this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It covers most sports, which ones are missing? Winning streaks in casinos would be interesting, good idea (I don't know about winning streaks in wars, a concept for a short story though, Vonnegut would have hit it out of the park). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With an estimated 8,000 sports worldwide, it does not even come close to being comprehensive. And I see it does have some computer games, but it is missing a lot of those too. And dear, oh dear, it doesn't even have Scrabble. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has to be that comprehensive, most readers would look for the major sports. Maybe the first thousand or so (kidding). Scrabble, a good idea! Does it have a page for records? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs massive cleanup and formatting, but it serves a valid, interesting, and useful purpose and covers a term—and measure of achievement, if not legacy—that is active and well-established in the lexicon of modern sports throughout the world. This seems very obvious to me. Anwegmann (talk) 21:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TNT. Per Ignatius. Pare down to the basic concept supplemented with some of whichever examples are used in multiple RS that cover the concept broadly (not listicles). The bulk of the article should be sourced to these general-concept refs, with some sport-specific treatments of winning streaks addressed when BALASP. Lists of winning streaks should be in separate list articles by sport and linked from a list of lists page.

JoelleJay (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can discuss at the article's talk. Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article significantly overhauled. Kingsif (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible for me to have a stronger keep opinion now? Conyo14 (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overhauled? You mean decimated with good faith edits. This relisted RfD, which should have been kept long ago, includes the 'Keep' comments added when this was a full article, and that is what has been judged in this RfD and not the "new" truncated version. Unless the Keep editors object this should be reverted back to the version that people here actually commented on. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Randy, but I'm still a strong keep. Conyo14 (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the !keep votes indicate that work, including delistifying needed doing. It is not uncommon (and should definitely not be discouraged) for articles to be improved in the process of an AfD. A closer takes comments and the status of the article at the time of closing into account, so unless you think there is a majority !keep argument that the article as it was should be kept as it was, it would surely be counterproductive to not only suggest but actually try to enforce that articles at AfD shouldn't be improved after people have !voted. The fact it has been significantly changed has been noted here. Kingsif (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the list addresses many "Delete" editors' concerns. The list is still visible in page history should anyone wish to retrieve it and fashion something more appropriate from it, likely best suited in a different article. The question now can solely concern whether we are dealing with WP:DICDEF or not. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page, with the list included, is what editors were commenting Keep about. Should be reverted to that version. Without the list the page means little. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are one of what appears to be only two editors who indicated that you think the article should have an extensive list, and therefore you are involved. Your reversion to the pre-AfD version, besides reflecting basically just your own personal preference, is also setting that dangerous precedent I mentioned of discouraging improvement during the course of AfDs. I strongly suggest you self-revert based on the principles of being involved (that a user with an interest should not be unilaterally taking decisions favouring that interest). Kingsif (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the list(s) have largely been moved to draft articles - or already existed at sport-specific records pages - and I had already started a discussion topic on the merits of standalone lists or not for them all at the winning streak article talk page. Kingsif (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the core concept is a very notable term in sports. There should be more than enough sources to make an encyclopedia article. The list is unverifed and needs to go. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 20:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tarn Willers

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

Although he meets ANYBIO #1, that criterion only indicates likely, not presumptive, notability under the GNG ("meeting one or more [criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included"). After searching, I have not been able to find significant coverage in reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Poland, and England. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He won a BAFTA Award and he is currently being nominated for an Oscar. He also won and was nominated for other awards [72] and I'm sure there are other sources about him around [73]. Only one criteria has to be met according to WP:NOTABILITY, "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)", so it passes WP:SNG and it meets WP:ANYBIO#1. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:N does say that; that means we look to see what NBIO says. NBIO, in the lead paragraph for the "Additional criteria" section (directly above ANYBIO), states: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Unlike NCREATIVE, which explicitly states that "a person is notable if" they meet the criteria, ANYBIO#1 does not confer presumptive notability; it only indicates that SIGCOV is likely to exist. See this discussion in the NBIO talk archives, particularly the points made by JoelleJay and Horse Eye's Back.
Regarding the second source you've provided, it is entirely based on an interview and thus is not independent. As I noted in my nomination, I have not found additional significant coverage after an extensive WP:BEFORE search andthe sources cited in the article do not provide SIGCOV. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It still passes WP:SNG and it doesn't have to pass WP:GNG, only one criteria has to be met in WP:NOTABILITY. While reading the additional criteria, it still meets the WP:ANYBIO#1 following standard. But "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." seems to be something else and it doesn't mention that it has to have significant sources. It just says differently or something. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
seems to be something else and it doesn't mention that it has to have significant sources. It just says differently or something. You're ignoring the previous sentence, which states that people are only "likely to be notable"—meaning likely to have significant coverage in reliable sources—if they meet the criteria, not that they are presumptively notable. With that context, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" has a pretty clear meaning: even if a subject meets one of the SNGs listed at NBIO, an article will not be appropriate if there is no significant coverage.
Put another way, ANYBIO#1 provides a rule of thumb: if a person meets ANYBIO#1, there will usually be significant coverage of them ("likely to be notable"), but that significant coverage is not always guaranteed. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likely to be notable doesn't really mean "likely to have significant coverage in reliable sources", it mostly means that they are likely to be notable if they meet the following standards in WP:ANYBIO. There is no mention if it needs significant coverage in there. Look at WP:NBOX, it's specific if it needs significant coverage since that says "Significant coverage is likely to exist for a boxer if they" meet the following standards. Willers is still notable. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage is likely to exist" is synonymous with "likely to be ntoable" because "notable" is defined as "having significant coverage in independent, reliable sources". The argument that "likely to be notable" means "likely to be notable" if it meets ANYBIO#1, and therefore if something meets ANYBIO#1, it is presumptively notable, is circular. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, "likely to be notable" means that "if they meet the following standards or criteria on what they have to meet in WP:ANYBIO" (with no mention of significant coverage) since it ends off with "if they meet any of the following standards". This reminds me of WP:NOLY, that it is notable but needs significant coverage. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MoviesandTelevisionFan's explanation said it all.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MoviesandTelevisionFan. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The award implies notability, but we still need sourcing about the person. This is about the best I could find [74]. Sadly, I think sound engineers don't get much press coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Won BAFTA and nominated for an Oscar, clearly notable. --NiTen (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Arguments are evenly divided among participating editors between Merging, Keeping and Deletion. This article can either be returned to AFD in a few months' time (sooner and we'll just get another No consensus closure) or those editors advocating Merge can discuss the possibility on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aichi Shukutoku Junior College

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

Not meeting notability standards. See WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NEXIST. Avishai11 (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Avishai11 (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing much evidence of a WP:BEFORE search here, let alone a WP:NOENG one. This is a college which existed for 40 years, much of it pre-dating the internet's prevalence but the sources provided in the Japanese article are enough for verification and, before we delete, a comprehensive search of offline sources in Japan should be done. DCsansei (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, particularly WP:NSCHOOL. No indication of significance. The fact that it has existed for 40 years is neither here nor there. The length of existance is not a notability criteria. scope_creep^Talk 18:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. My Japanese is not good, but I'm able to find some scholarly works on the college, such as A Survey on Consciousness about Health, Physical Fitness and Exercise at Aichi Shukutoku Junior College, and it appears to have some connection with an extant university (Aichi Shukutoku University). I think that sufficient sourcing is likely to exist that could expand the article on the Junior College and, barring that, it would be better to merge the page to that on the University than deleting it altogether. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aichi Shukutoku University – i see a few things in Japanese sources but doesn't fully satisfy WP:NSCHOOL. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aichi Shukutoku University. The subject can be verified but not detailed. BusterD (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amirhossein Sahebkar

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

He has many citations but most of them are co-authored with many people (see Google scholar) and it is unclear how significant his contributions actually are. The page does not mention any particular significant contribution. The only non-primary reference is a list of people with the most citations where he was placed 2843rd. The list is not live, but it is archived) Bendegúz Ács (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hard not to Keep under WP:Prof#C1 on basis of GS citation record. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC).~~ I note that every paper I have looked at has a vast number of authors. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. No evidence for independent achievement. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Well the second citation is now a dead link, but ranking 2800th and something isn't notable. First one is primary source, with nothing extra that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep C1 does not say anything about the co-authors. More references in the Persian page. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ongoing discussion on how useful citation counts are for establishing academic natability and one point brought up there was exactly the studies with huge collaborator lists (see this comment: [75]). If you think citations from such studies should be equally important, please bring it up there. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. When faced with the issue of how to assess citations from huge collaborations, my usual response it to scan his profile counting only the first-author papers. Necessarily this will lower the subject's citation counts but I think that the resulting lowered counts will be easier to calibrate against the field than counts from publications with so many coauthors that Google won't even list them all. Anyway, for Sahebkar I find "Are curcuminoids effective" (sole author), 340; "Curcumin downregulates human tumor necrosis factor" (five authors), 296; "Effect of curcuminoids on oxidative stress" (four authors), 244; "New peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists" (three authors), 217; "Lipid-modifying effects of nutraceuticals" (seven authors), 189; "Curcuminoids modulate pro‐oxidant–antioxidant balance" (nine authors), 178; "Why it is necessary to translate curcumin into clinical practice" (sole author), 176, etc. I think this shows that, even when only first-author papers are considered, he has a pattern of well-cited publications and moreover a clear focus for his research topics, enough to make me comfortable with calling this a pass of WP:PROF#C1. But that's not the only hurdle. The other question is whether we have enough depth of sourcing to support more than a one-sentence sub-stub. Currently we don't even have that. We only have one database-like primary source listing him as a contractor/visitor at an Australian university, and supporting none of the claims in the article. (The webometrics.info source is not even worth discussion.) So the article as it stands fails WP:V, which trumps notability. I tried some cursory searches but only found random author and speaker profiles likely written by the subject. But if more substantial sourcing of his education and career milestones can be turned up, it might be enough to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like there are some Farsi language sources. I've made some updates to the article. TJMSmith (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the added sources by TJMSmith show notability, especially having won a major award. This would fulfill C2 of WP:NACADEMIC. Other concerns of a microstub addressed above seem solved now. Broc (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. – GnocchiFan (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As mentioned by others, while his h-factor is large this is for multiple author reviews and should not be considered just by itself. With just his h-factor I would have voted delete. However, the addition of the award satisfies what has been discussed in WT:NPROF (but not as yet formalized), a need for reputable awards to indicate that others recognize notability. It is only a weak keep as this is a national award; if it was international then it would be a strong keep. (I still slightly wonder about the award.) Ldm1954 (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I can't necessary see the subject passing WP: SIGCOV but per WP: NPROF because of the award. Otuọcha (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. An assessment of the Farsi sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: While coverage has been very limited to two non-resume mentions, Amirhossein Sahebkar has recently won a prestigious award, an indication of future potential (as to the expansion and long-term viability of the page) and additional supporting coverage.

Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 2:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Shavit Artson

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

while finding sources, i could only find self-biographies and some articles written by them online. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, Judaism, Germany, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep
- Article about him in Jewish Journal[76]
- Starred review in Publishers' Weekly of God of Becoming and Relationship: The Dynamic Nature of Process Theology[77]
- A journal article about his work[78] --Jahaza (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some more academic articles discussing his work: [79], [80], [81] [82], [83] (yes it's on academia.edu but it's a copy of a journal article). The article does need to be completely rewritten, but I don't think WP:TNT is justified. Apocheir (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: New sources look fine, including the article about him and the book reviews. Easily passes notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Griselda Vegas

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

PROD was contested. Non-notable person, fails WP:NBEAUTY, having not won one of the Big Four beauty pageants, fails WP:NPEOPLE and WP:GNG as well. Sources found no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 03:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Beauty pageants, and Venezuela. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 03:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost Speedy, I can't find any secondary references at all MNewnham (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary coverage. Let'srun (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Scott Weiland. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Softdrive Records

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

This article literally has only two sources, one of which (Alternative Nation) is listed under WP:NOTRSMUSIC, and the other of which (Buzzbands) has no consensus at RSMUSIC. Complete failure of WP:NOTABILITY, just because it was established by a notable musician does not mean the label is notable in and of itself. JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Scott Weiland. A lamentably large number of obvious record label merge targets get sent to AfD, for some reason. Chubbles (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, changing to Merge to Scott Weiland per Chubbles. JeffSpaceman (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EnergyX

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 02:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep may be notable per NEXIST (sources that exist but have not yet been added per language barrier, or something like that. At least, the US TechCrunch has a good source on EnergyX. --BoraVoro (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not know one word in Korean (sorry) and for lack of time I cannot do a comprehensive analysis of sources in Korean right now. Even so a few observations. Next to this article, there is an article on this company's main project. The company is already mentioned there. So delete is not really on the menu. At minimum this should be a redirect. Merge is not really on the menu either, as talking a lot on the parent on the project's page would create content drift/UNDUE/COATRACK etc. A merge in the opposite direction would be possible. So the options HERE are redirect or keep. The company is young yet operates in an area that receives coverage. The text is promotional and I will add a payment warning. gidonb (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~::I support either a keep or redirect and object to a delete or merge, per reasons detailed above. gidonb (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)~~ Delete is now also an option so the post scriptum has outlived its useful live. It was a summary for that moment of my comment above it. gidonb (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will go through the sources on this. scope_creep^Talk 21:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets look at the first block of references in hope of getting some input:

Ref 1 [84] Forbes 50 fastest growing startups. Non-notable trade award. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 2 [85] "EnergyX wins the 2023 Korea 4th Industry Leading Company Grand Prize" Non-notable trade award. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 3 [86] "Seoul-based energy funding startup bags $5.1m in Hyundai-led round" Funding. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Ref 4 [87] "Park Seong-hyeon and Hong Du-hwa, co-CEOs of EnergyX “Energy independence through buildings is the key to future cities". Not independent. Conference. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS
Ref 5 [88] "EnergyX presents sustainable building platform and vision at the 2023 Carbon Neutral Expo". Not independent. Conference. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS
Ref 6 [89] Funding annoucement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Ref 7 [90] Funding annoucement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

The rest of the references are the same low quality. None of them meet the bar defined in WP:SIRS, effectively failing WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 14:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

vote removed: Thanks to scope_creep for the source analysis, but I must disagree with some of the conclusions drawn. While an award might not be notable, if the award gets coverage in an otherwise reliable, secondary, and independent source and the coverage is significant, it counts towards notability. Similarly, articles about a funding round, if more than trivial or incidental (ie., significant coverage of the funding rather beyond a line or two in a tipsheet about the round) can count towards notability if its more than a brief mention and otherwise SIRS. DCsansei (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Striking my vote per the paid editor observation made by BusterD, probably best to start over. DCsansei (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DCsansei: Do you have actual evidence per WP:THREE which is considered best-practice since last autumn. I do hundreds of these company articles, since 2008 and I've seen the same argument multiple times. It is false. Your slightly confused. In 2018, the WP:NCORP guidelines were completely rewritten to be stricter. Funding is now considered trivial coverage and is non-rs. Also trade awards, which are given out like water to drive business relationship are generally considered non-notable on Wikipedia. So if you some references that prove the company notable, post them up instead of posting conjecture and non-truths. scope_creep^Talk 18:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to pick up on the comment above. If the *award* gets coverage, we need to examine the content of that coverage to see whether it includes information *about* the company that is original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If the "coverage" is a cut-and-paste and all the "coverage" is essentially the same article, then no, it fails our criteria. And in this particular case, none of the coverage about the "award" meets our criteria. Similarly, articles about a funding round might meet the criteria if the *content* of the article meets the criteria and isn't simply regurgitating information from a press release or the company website. There is a difference between notability of the company and "coverage". HighKing 14:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More discussion explicitly about the sources presented would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far, they hasn't been a single reference presented that supports WP:SIRS correctly. Its relatively a brand new startup, the usual SAAS type startup and not a single piece of coverage that has been presented that hasn't been created by the company. The supposed trade awards are by long consensus, more than a decade, are non-notable. Does anybody have evidence that the company is notable, or is it another brand new company using an agency to manage its Wikipedia brand. It is brochure advertising and non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 16:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm choosing not to assert keep for what is obviously a purely promotional and paid page creation or redirect it to another clearly promotional and paid page creation. The nominator's source analysis leaves very little for this page to stand on. This article fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Question: What distinguishes this contracting firm from any other? BusterD (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Answer: an undeclared paid editor. BusterD (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have nominated the building for deletion as well Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EnergyX DY-Building. Based on my reading, every edit this contributor has made has been to Korean construction firms and the projects they sell. BusterD (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability despite the "awards" and "funding rounds" which are not part of our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 14:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rogers (character)

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

All I could find for this character were Valnet sources or posts from the official Marvel site. The character appears to also be an extremely minor one, and the article itself is rather small. A basic merge of character info to the list is probably more than enough to suffice here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a very minor character, with only a handful of actual appearances. Searching under all of the various names given to the character turns up very little coverage in actual reliable sources (i.e., sources that are not fan wikis or official Marvel pages). There are just a few handful of sites simply summarizing a few of the issues he appeared in. On top of that, both entries in the "In other media" section are on two completely different characters, so I am not sure why they are even listed there, and of course those appearances would not demonstrate any notability for this character. Rorshacma (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. Doesn't have enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG. Without enough sources, it might even have fundamental issues with WP:V. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: R in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: R per above, lacks IRS with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 22:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the proposed alternatives to deletion would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To address the proposed ATD as suggested by the relisting, the character is completely non-notable and poorly sourced. Merging anywhere would just result in the non-notable and poorly sourced information being shifted to another page, which would just mean the exact same problems that prompted this AFD would now just exist on a different page. Again, I want to point out that the listings in the "Other Versions" and "In Other Media" sections are not the same characters, meaning there is literally one very short paragraph of poorly sourced information in this article even about the subject. Citing WP:PRESERVE is not a a magic passphrase that means that one can completely ignore addressing the blatant notability and sourcing concerns with this fictional character. Rorshacma (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to a deletion verdict should that come to be the case, especially given the points acknowledged here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1888 Albion football team

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:NSEASONS. Let'srun (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Michigan. Let'srun (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the team played only two games (a third game was cancelled), both games received WP:SIGCOV. I've added summaries of the games. Cbl62 (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Cbl62. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raffaele Buranelli

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG and the sourcing is not up to scratch. The first source is an advertising website, the second provides no significant coverage, the third is mostly an interview which doesn’t contribute towards notability as a primary source (the website also appears to be unreliable). The fourth source again lacks significant coverage, and the fifth appears to be unreliable. A WP:BEFORE turned up virtually no reliable coverage, such as the FilmFreeway forum source and only brief mentions in books. I could see no particularly viable redirect targets per WP:ATD. The Night Watch (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, Advertising, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana K. Arnold

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

no sourcing online apart from database entries. external links link to films Ms. Arnold was apparently involved in but do not actually mention her. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Now apparently a marketing exec for a startup company, does not meet notability for any aspect of her career. MNewnham (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, Arkansas, Kansas, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find no refs Victuallers (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Moxee, Washington with the history preserved should anyone want to merge. Star Mississippi 01:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artesian, Washington

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

Contested PROD, with the reason being that Reference 4 describes this place as a town. While that is true, Reference 4 is also a two-sentence entry in a table, dated 1923, sourced to a letter that I don't have the means to track down. References 1 and 2 are GNIS, references 3 and 5 are dead links. Other than reference 4, I cannot find a single mention of a "community" or "town" of Artesian; several news articles from the early 1900s do mention artesian springs in the Moxee area, but not one mentions a "town" of Artesian (or even any person "from" or "of" Artesian), which is suspicious considering this place supposedly had a post office in 1900. So most likely this was just a rural post office, which by precedent is wholly insufficient for passing WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Another useless stub on a nonexistent location based on sloppy misreading of GNIS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mr James H. Gano who ran the Artesian post office in Yakima until 1901 when rural free delivery, that he himself promoted, supplanted it,^{(IPC 1904a, p. 641) harv error: no target: CITEREFIPC1904a (help)} would be astonished to learn that thanks to Edmond Stephen Meany in 1916 misreading Marian McShane's handwriting in a letter and one or the other of them promoting a defunct 1901 post office into a 1904 town, here we are a century and a quarter later. Not to be conflated with the George A. Gano who had an artesian well and later went into the hotel business with I. B. Turnell, of course.^{(IPC 1904b, p. 565) harv error: no target: CITEREFIPC1904b (help)} Uncle G (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

references

"Gano, James H.". An Illustrated History of Klickitat, Yakima and Kittitas Counties: With an Outline of the Early History of the State of Washington. Interstate Publishing Company. 1904. pp. 640–641.
"Gano, George A.". An Illustrated History of Klickitat, Yakima and Kittitas Counties: With an Outline of the Early History of the State of Washington. Interstate Publishing Company. 1904. pp. 564–565.
Meany, Edmond S. (October 1917). "Washington Geographic Names". Washington Historical Quarterly. 8 (4). Washington State Historical Society: 265–290. JSTOR 23908626.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
Russell, Israel Cook (1893). A geological reconnoissance in central Washington. Bulletin. Vol. 108. Washington, D.C.: United States Geological Service. doi:10.3133/b108.

delete GNIS is in fact not sourced to any map, but to another place names book, published in 1985 and therefore fairly likely dependent on 1923 book as its source. This makes the location extremely suspect. I'm sorry, but reference to it as a town in a listing is just not good enough. Unsurprisingly the maps show nothing at the location, even as far back as 1936. Mangoe (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The 1923 book is just a condensed version of what Meany wrote as a series of articles across several issues of his Washington Historical Quarterly starting in 1917. And Meany 1917, p. 274 attributes it to "(Marian McShane, in Names MSS., Letter 347.)". As explained on Meany 1917, p. 265 this is a handwritten letter received from one Marian McShane, who I suspect wrote an "o" that Meany mistook for a cursive "s". Uncle G (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Moxee, Washington, which is a mile away. As noted, the springs are generally described as a feature of Moxee, not an independent place. Jbt89 (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that: (a) this is the 21st century, not the 19th; (b) artesian wells are not springs; (c) this article isn't about wells nor springs but goes on about a bogus "community" and its 1-year post office; (d) none of its 3 sentences are in fact accurate and mergeable; (e) the human-made modifications of the 19th century were in the Moxee Valley not in the small area of the city; (f) they were in fact along an 80-mile (130 km) valley that was more than the Moxee Valley even back in 1893;^{(Russell 1893, p. 54) harv error: no target: CITEREFRussell1893 (help)} and (g) the far more extensive 21st century truth, because of sizeable changes in the 1940s and 1960s, is dealt with, albeit somewhat glibly, in Yakima River#River modifications. Uncle G (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Agreed. For a merge to make sense there must a) be accurate content to merge, and b) if a redirect is left, some probability that someone searching for Artesian would find what they need at Moxee. Neither is the case here. Apart from the Meany book and this WP entry (and WP mirrors), there is no mention of a community of Artesian anywhere on the internet; nobody would search for it unless they came across this article first. I lived in the area for several years and never once heard of Artesian until I stumbled on this article the other day. We are creating misinformation by keeping any trace of this article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Re: the current year, WP:Notability does not degrade over time.
  
  If there was a town of Artesian - and I'm not convinced there was - it's notable, regardless of in what century that town existed. Jbt89 (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to moxee There is no mention of a town called Artesian in the local papers. There are frequent mentions of the "Moxee Artesian District" that might be what got on the map as a town.James.folsom (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should add there was no mention of the post office either. James.folsom (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with "post office out of a house" description. SportingFlyer T·C 16:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on the proposed alternative to deletion would help in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect. Per the nomination most of the article seems to be poorly sourced and possibly inaccurate, Due to this I don't believe it would be wise to merge information from this into moxee. I looked at the satellite images available and based on that plus the prior discussions (ie: James.folsom and Jbt89's comments) I think that as of the 21st century, this is now just a part of moxee. Seeing as this doesn't pass WP:GNG I think it should be deleted and turned into a redirect to moxee. Thanks! ZombiUwU ♥ ^{(🌸~♥~ 📝)} 23:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to GRTC Pulse#List of stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Lawn station

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

These are non-notable bus rapid transit stations - while there's plenty of coverage about the bus line, there's next to nothing about the individual stations. I suggest redirecting all to GRTC Pulse#List of stations. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Street station was recently closed as redirect; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arts District station is ongoing but consensus is clearly not to keep. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Virginia. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to participants in related discussions: @Boleyn, Shaws username, Reywas92, Djflem, Flatscan, Jumpytoo, StreetcarEnjoyer, Oaktree b, and Rupples: Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all Can be covered in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 03:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to GRTC Pulse#List of stations. Each station article is repeating pretty much the same detail, other than its location. Rupples (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to GRTC Pulse#List of stations, there's nothing notable about any of the stops beyong their GRTC link and there's not enough on them to merit their own pages. Shaws username . talk . 12:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all. Not individually notable. S5A-0043^Talk 14:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all: They’re just fancier bus stops at the end of the day, not individually notable. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolaos Argyriou (footballer, born 1994)

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

don't think this is notable enough. only sources i could find are database entries. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Total lack of sources, impossible to WP:V. Svartner (talk) 06:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Federal Highway 26

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

I don't think this highway actually exists. There's no information on its location in the article, it doesn't seem to be in the national map that's cited, and I couldn't find any other sources that mention it. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I repeat what I said on AFD Mexican Federal Highway 18. Please see its navbox. As far as I can tell,these are all done the same done way by Dr. Blofeld. Note the navbox at the bottom of the page. Also the talk page banners indicate this is ongoing project of both WikiProject Mexico, and WikiProject Highways. Category:Mexican Federal Highways. Stubs are a vital part of Wikipedia. Disagreements with that should probably be addressed to the individual projects overseeing this. — Maile (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a random look at various entries of highways, it looks like the sources are all Spanish-language PDF. Inasmuch as the sourcing seems to be like that in all I've looked at, perhaps this really is a project issue, not an AFD issue. What's the point in deleting a handful, when all the articles use that PDF sourcing as a basis? — Maile (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify how "Stubs are a vital part of Wikipedia" justifies an article on something that may not exist? Stubs without sources are not vital. I did note the navbox, which links List of Mexican Federal Highways – this does not have number 26 on it! Nor does the eswiki version. This is not a useful !vote if you can't actually refute the nominator's concern or provide sources to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 00:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is absolutely nothing in the article that shows why it should remain as it is. There's no content in the article & as the nomination states, the citations are not helping.

GeographicAccountant (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Putting in an actual !vote now since I was hoping someone would find a source first... No evidence of notability or even existence. Reywas92^Talk 14:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another highway not proven to be independently notable. I've said it before and I'll say it again: create a single article on Mexican highways, and should any individual highways be demonstrably notable, spin off articles from there. Cortador (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 03:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Asriyan

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

Successful musician but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep and improve- Skimming through the article, it's likely that WP:N can be met, but will require way more WP:RS to bolster/confirm it. Searching by his name in Armenian (or perhaps even in Russian or Azeri) may yield more results. Seems salvageable if an editor is willing to put in the time. Archives908 (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rufai Waris

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

Draftified the article for sile purpose of being improved. Yet moved back to main space without addressing citation needed tags and notability. Clearly fails WP:GNG. A thorough name of the artist cannot be seen on google /bing search before talking about references. The article cited sources which seems to be obvious blog and non of them is reliable. Otuọcha (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Otuọcha (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I firmly believe that article is justified and should not be deleted. It can be strengthened. I have already added two additional sources which I believe are stronger than what is cited above. The number of links to the page should not be a criteria for deletion.‪Pfomma‬ (talk) 5:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources are press releases or promotional puff pieces by dubious publications that have no indication they meet WP:RS. S0091 (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have thoroughly researched about the subject of the article and must say there was no sign of notability. Failed WP: ANYBIO, WP: SIGCOV. Otuọcha (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG or WP:NSINGER. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject has not been discussed in reliable sources to establish notability. Best, Reading Beans 17:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Spanish Quidditch Cup

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. There's no Spanish Wikipedia article on this one. The article lists some references (no inlines), but they all just say "this event will happen on this date at this location" then explain what quidditch itself is, so no significant coverage provided. Really wasn't able to find anything else other than an article about who won that was behind a paywall. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Europe, and Spain. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish Quidditch Cup. Geschichte (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Lyman

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the secondary sources is about the subject. Articles by the subject are not proof of notability. MarioGom (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United States of America. MarioGom (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, South America, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: seems to be an automotive journalist, but nothing about him as a person. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:ANYBIO,WP:JOURNALIST MNewnham (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Ewok. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wicket W. Warrick

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is entirely redundant to the Ewok article, as all Reception is related to Ewoks, and not Wicket. Outside of casting info, there really isn't anything that justifies a separation, especially since a source search yields practically nothing else in terms of Reception. I'd say either a merge or redirect to Ewok could be good AtD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ewok. The character is certainly notable, but the sourcing just isn't quite there. Every citation is either primary, non-RS, or not about the character but about Ewoks in general, as nom says. With better sourcing I could change my mind. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wicket W. Warrick. A notable character for sure. Was a main character in two made for TV movies (with theatrical releases outside North America) as well as two seasons of the Ewoks cartoon, and a large part of Star Wars marketing for the mid-1980s. I would suggest a few additions and citations be added, rather than outright deletion. May require some cleanup, but far less notable characters remain with pages in tact. RamshackleMan (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you show any of these sources illustrating notability? I'm willing to consider changing my stance, but my BEFORE showed nothing proving Wicket's independent notability from Ewoks as a species. Just because a character is important does not mean it automatically warrants an article, there need to be sources actively proving a character is notable instead of just a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per WeirdNAnnoyed. This doesn't have WP:SIGCOV outside of the Ewoks, where it is already covered. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ewok: Wicket W. Warrick is not independently notable from his fictional species. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 06:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Everson, Emily (2014-09-21). "Papermill to Open the Season With Rousing Production of "Can-Can"". Millburn-Short Hills, NJ Patch. Retrieved October 26, 2018.

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ScholarMate}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV's Naughtiest Blunders}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Marks}}