Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:29, 10 June 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 09	June 11 >

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. Owen× ☎ 23:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blood purity

AfDs for this article:

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

"Blood purity" does not occur as a term in any of the linked articles except Fictional universe of Harry Potter (the original intention of the page as first written), and Limpieza de sangre: other entries fail MOS:DABMENTION. If rewritten as an article it would require sources, which it currently doesn't have and so fails WP:V. An alternative to deletion may be to redirect to Fictional universe of Harry Potter with a hatnote to other use(s). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Social science, and Disambiguations. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Applying the term "blood purity" to refer to blood quantum laws, half-caste status, etc., is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and it doesn't seem necessary to redirect this as a concept to the Fictional universe of Harry Potter page (where it appears the concept in the HP universe is called "purity of blood"?). Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wow, this is not a topic space I want to be much involved in. As I understand disambiguation policy, there are two burdens that need to be met. Fist, there need to be at least three valid dab topics (WP:TWODABS), and second, those target articles need to make use of the disambiguated term (WP:DABMENTION). That complicates AFD somewhat, because an article that should deal with a disambiguated topic but doesn't is an editorial issue for the target article rather than strictly a deletion issue for the disambiguation page... at least in my mind. Anyway. I don't think there's any real debate that Limpieza de sangre and Fictional universe of Harry Potter are both relevant target articles for this topic. Looking exclusively at peer reviewed journal content here, because hoo boy I do not want to do general searches on this, I think it's overwhelmingly clear that racial hygiene should also be a valid dab target,[1][2][3][4] although the article at current does not make use of this term. There's also quite a bit in the literature about parallel concepts in Japanese and Korean culture, although I don't honestly even know what the applicable extant article would be for that, if any. There is at least some scholarly use of the term in the context of the blood quantum laws [5][6] although I'll admit that's somewhat less common that its use in the German, Japanese, or Korean context. I didn't look into the Australian stuff. I've searched just about enough of this for one day. Lubal (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. The concept of "blood purity" (or being a "pureblood") is a big deal in the post-COVID-19 antivax community, and it is surprising that this is mentioned nowhere in the encyclopedia. It should be noted somewhere relevant, and added to this disambiguation page. BD2412 T 23:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)*[reply]
Note: see, e.g., France 24, "Vaccine misinformation spawns 'pure blood' movement", stating "In closed social media groups, vaccine skeptics -- who brand themselves as "pure bloods" -- promote violence against doctors administering coronavirus jabs alongside false claims of mass deaths of vaccinated people"; Vice, "Unvaccinated TikTokers Are Calling Themselves 'Purebloods'"; The Edge, "Purebloods: The Anti-Semitism and White Supremacy of the Anti-Vax Movement", stating, "In September 2021, an assemblage of TikTok users anointed themselves 'Purebloods' for their repudiation of the COVID vaccine". BD2412 T 23:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this content to an appropriate article and this disambiguation page. BD2412 T 01:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This strikes me as a situation where WP:MEDRS would apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are social conventions, not actual biomedical information. WP:MEDRS applies to the latter. BD2412 T 13:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as DICTDEF. An article on "Purebloods" in the anti-vax context would be not only a GNG pass, but strikes me as a deficiency of WP by not having it. That is not what this is. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – So many possible DAB targets have emerged in this discussion that deletion now makes no sense. The suggestions from Lubal and BD2412 for what to include seem well-reasoned. Toadspike [Talk] 09:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the phrase seems to be too ambiguous to redirect to any of the (several dissimilar and notable) topics that the term could describe. The disambiguation page should remain. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTDICT "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide." The term "blood purity" is found in different wordings ("pure blooded" i.e.), essentially meaning the same thing. Whether talking about a race of people, or a breed of animal. Go with whatever usage the source does. We don't need a DAB page to tell us that. — Maile (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there are multiple valid targets here, and we only need two where one is non-primary to warrant a DAB page. Fictional universe of Harry Potter and Limpieza de sangre on their own are enough to support a DAB. Content on the DAB page past that is another question, but it's not one for AFD. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a disambiguation page. It may need a bit of revision to adhere to modern standards of dab pages, but that does not change the fact that it is a dab page. And it's a valid dab, since it could very easily point to either of Limpieza de sangre or Fictional universe of Harry Potter without either being an obvious WP:PTOPIC. As such, we should keep this page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid disambiguation page and serves a good purpose. Malinaccier (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Belgium–Russia relations. Malinaccier (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Belgium, Moscow

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

Fails WP:ORG. Russian version of this article also only has 1 source. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Belgium, and Russia. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Belgium–Russia relations, where the embassy is mentioned, as an ATD. gidonb (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Due to lack of participation. Malinaccier (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hansford

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

Most of the sources are not in-depth or are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable bio which only has two sentences about his ministry. The rest is about his education and family background. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable as an important faith figure in New South Wales’ third biggest Christian denomination. All Moderators of the Uniting Church should be profiled rather than deleting them so we have record of church leadership. hSproulesLane (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No inherent notability in his position. Where are the sources to meet WP:BIO? LibStar (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a well known deletionist LibStar has made his point so I hope he will allow other editors to have their say without harassing them to accept his view of a minimalist version of an online encyclopaedia … please let others contribute without your bullying. SproulesLane (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not bullying, merely pointing out that all biographies need sources to meet WP:BIO, which you have failed to do. LibStar (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added references from The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, The Northern Daily Leader and the NSW Government indicating his activities in resent years. SproulesLane (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding sources. The SMH one is a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. The NSW government one is him merely making a statement on behalf of the church and also not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian article does not establish notability, it is an opinion piece by Hansford and a WP:PRIMARY source. LibStar (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No new comments after two relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microlecture

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

A hat-rack article with no clear topic. Primarily a list of citations, rather than actual content. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is written pretty badly but the large number of sources are in fact good. There are a whole lot of studies but it seems like there would almost definitely be at least 3 in there specifically mentioning microlectures which are also reliable and secondary.

e.g.

1. https://statenews.com/article/2009/03/microlectures_turn_lessons_into_interactive_snippets

2. https://campustechnology.com/articles/2010/11/10/teaching-in-one-minute-snippets.aspx

3. (off google not the thing, accepts submissions from non-journalists) https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/online-course-delivery-and-instruction/microlectures-101-what-why-how/

4. (from the thing) short mention in fox news

So the article has a clear topic, at least 2 reliable secondary sources, and a number of journal articles (plus many, many unreliable blogs). I think there's not really a good case to delete here, the article is just bad and basically needs to be started from scratch without all the blogs. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said it might be a fad and not be the sustained coverage policy, but I'd say keep it. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a different word for "lectures on TikTok"? I would not be too surprised if there is more coverage of the general concept under a different name.
I'm not entirely convinced yet, but the links at [7] (which links to your link 3) suggest this might be "keep but re-write". Walsh90210 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 materialized after nom withdrew their Delete view. Owen× ☎ 23:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westview Secondary School

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

Nominated for deletion as this article entirely lacks WP:Sources and doesn't meet WP:Notability neither WP:GNG

I wondered why it is retained on Wikipedia from 2006 till this moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fixed malformed Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 03:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've not given a valid reason for deletion. Deletion is based on the subject of the article, not the condition of the article. See WP:BEFORE. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It fails Wikipedia:Verifiability wɔːr (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of notability and no sources since 2006 — Iadmc ♫^talk 00:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree the article in its current state lacks sources. However, under WP:ARTN, Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. I added a couple sources to the article, and also posted multiple potential sources from ProQuest at Talk:Westview Secondary School. Based on these sources, this subject meets WP:GNG, per criteria at WP:NSCHOOL. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of the sources might add notability to the school: "Nash Taylor placed second in a global competition". Just because a school exists and is mentioned in multiple sources doing normal things for a school, this doesn't establish notability. — Iadmc ♫^talk 08:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstand WP's concept of notability. See WP:N, which says Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity. Notability rests on significant coverage in reliable sources. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Of the cited sources, only one does this (ApplyBoard) and I'm not convinced of its independence. I need to join ProQuest to verify the sources on the talk page so bear with me on that — Iadmc ♫^talk 11:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not able to join ProQuest as a non-academic as I'm not at a university etc :( — Iadmc ♫^talk 11:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Another user pointed me to The Wikipedia Library. Bingo I'm in. I'll check out the subject soon — Iadmc ♫^talk 11:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still no significant coverage at ProQust. Perhaps the stabbing is notable though? Try the google search — Iadmc ♫^talk 14:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: This is about all I can find [8] that's not related to regular school items (a concert, a student getting an award/scholarship)... I don't think we have enough for notability here. A school from the 1970s likely won't have notability as an historic building either. Oaktree b (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~

Lacks notability in its entirety. Maybe, because the article is Wikipedia:Too soon. I don't know but I wonder why it's not yet covered in reliable sources from 2006 till date. So, delete until it's ready for inclusion on Wikipedia. Wår (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added multiple independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage of the subject. For directions on accessing ProQuest sources via the Wikipedia Library see the top of the page at Talk:Westview Secondary School. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Malinaccier

Please, do well to remove the Afd tag now. Issues resolved. Wår (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
War Term, are you requesting your AfD nomination to be withdrawn? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Wår (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to withdraw your nomination but this discussion can't be closed as there are several Delete arguments that have been made. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Users Iadmc and Oaktree b, given the changes in this article since its AfD nomination, and War Term's request to withdraw his nomination, would you be willing to take another look and reconsider your !vote? Thanks. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. It still is just about ordinary school things. Even the stabbing isn't mentioned — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep They put in a flower garden and a totem pole, but I suppose these are enough for at least GNG... Still not super duper sources, but good enough. Oaktree b (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Pontremoli

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

Doesn't meet WP:BASIC C F A 💬 02:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, Judaism, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could you elaborate on why none of the sources meet BASIC in your opinion? FortunateSons (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the biography in Educational Institutions Pamphlets (which is actually a 1950 L'Ecole National D'Administration book) plus short mentions in La Rabia De La Expresion, Le conseil d'état et le régime de Vichy", and the State Council plaque should be sufficient for WP:NBASIC. There are other short mentions, perhaps some longer ones, on GScholar. Oblivy (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 14:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahonri Ngakuru

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this transactional announcement. Unless WP:SIGCOV is found, I suggest draftification. JTtheOG (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Lots of coverage here, although it's very close as to whether it passes WP:GNG or not. Given his career is just starting and he will likely generate further coverage in the future I'd suggest weak keep. Personally wouldn't dratify as I imagine it will just get forgotten about here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support draft not seeing any independent sigcov. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft / Delete as this individual does not yet seem notable as there is no sigcov. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 07:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, coverage is restricted to trivial name drops and routine reports, nothing approaching GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bee Broadcasting

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

Subject lacks the needed sources to meet the WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Montana. Let'srun (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that subject lacks needed secondary sources. Also appears to fall firmly under Wikipedia:ROTM. Manyyassin (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:NCORP, no coverage in reliable sources found. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Werner

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

I nominated this for AfD because an IP prodded it and I felt like it might be controversial. Not sure if he meets the WP:GNG but there are a decent amount of sources. (Don’t seem reliable though, citehighlighter is highlighting a lot of them orange and red) 48JCL TALK 02:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be a well-written résumé, but doesn't impress me as anything else. It has a self-aggrandizement tone throughout. The large section "Early life and education" is irrelevant to notability. In a nutshell, this individual has been a successful career business man. But that usually means getting a good education and making the right connections to rise to the top. However, I don't find where he meets WP:ANYBIO, and he would not match any other criteria. — Maile (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that it does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Also, I am suspicious that this may be a case of WP:AUTO (e.g. the headshot picture is uploaded by johnkellogwerner). A significant number of the sources are problematic, with some being press releases, personal blogs, local pieces, and the subject's alumni magazine (the info from which likely comes from the subject himself). Manyyassin (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archi & Meidy

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

Did not find any sources behind this series to establish notability. GamerPro64 02:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Indonesia. GamerPro64 02:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Yohanes Surya. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BOOKCRIT ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PW van Vuuren

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there is this I'm struggling to find anything else GNG worthy. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stairs Mhlongo

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coert Cronjé

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood purity (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Belgium, Moscow}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Hansford}}<!--Relisted-->