User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:44, 28 August 2024

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 01:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Score
Martha Mbugua	3 months ago	1	6656	1792.79
Tuleap (2nd nomination)	3 months ago	3	6485	1631.64
List of ASEAN countries and subdivisions by minimum wage	3 months ago	4	7473	1569.74
Dandenong West Football Club	3 months ago	2	6398	1561.88
Educational Basketball	3 months ago	4	6348	1440.43
David Merriman	3 months ago	3	6852	1428.43
LM358	3 months ago	1	5547	1375.67
Mlaka Maliro	3 months ago	0	4783	1309.09
Personal Capital	3 months ago	1	5625	1306.42
The Podcats	3 months ago	1	3796	1253.13
Axel Meise	3 months ago	1	3831	1248.2
Godenu	3 months ago	3	5647	1215.67
Kaveri–Vaigai Link Canal	3 months ago	1	2774	1206.96
Dean Hawkshaw	3 months ago	4	3798	1198.69
Armoured One (2nd nomination)	3 months ago	1	3298	1181.29
Edward Henry Burke Cooper	3 months ago	2	3869	1177.13
Cardholder Information Security Program	3 months ago	2	4233	1164.6
Semantics and Pragmatics	3 months ago	4	12179	1156.98
Rolandas Jasevičius	3 months ago	2	6981	1152.6
List of Drum Corps International World Championship finalists	3 months ago	1	5273	1100.1
Very Filmy	3 months ago	3	8775	1083.08
Allan Ivo Steel	3 months ago	3	7198	1067.13
Buang Ruk Kamathep	3 months ago	1	3405	1058.11
Social disorganization theory	3 months ago	0	3502	1057.42
Jamal Zougam	3 months ago	1	4355	1056.54

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the sole Keep view lacks substance, we failed to garner quorum even after four weeks, limiting the outcome to a soft deletion. Owen× ☎ 12:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Martha Mbugua

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

No satisfactory sources in the article, and a quick search didn't find any. Note: this was prompted by a request at the help desk on behalf of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Law, and Kenya. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Also found this in the help desk, for me personally, I suggest keeping the article, my reason is because she co-founded (is that correct?) the biggest law firm in Kenya, and is one of the top 40 most popular women from Kenya.

Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

User:TheNuggeteer, more important than your opinion on this subject is how you would counter the reasons offered in the deletion rationale. What sources support your claim of notability? Please be specific. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, sources 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are the sources which prompt me to give the "keep" reply. She does not seem notable outside the business, I'll give you that, but being one of the top 40 women from a country is enough for me.🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@TheNuggeteer, please read what Wikipedia means by notable. 2 and 6 do not mention her. 3 and 7 (which are the same source) has a potted biography, but is mostly quoting her. 5 gives me a 404, but judging by its title, I would be amazed if it had significant coverage of her. 8 and 9 give potted biographies, but are almost certainly not independent.

Sources used to establish notability need to meet all three criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

My comments only: Firstly, several of the sources are actually the same. Secondly, appearing in a list of “40 under 40” is not the same thing as “one of the 40 most popular women.” Finally, we need to decide whether being a partner in Dentons, by far the largest law firm in the World, creates a legal notability by itself. This discussion might have to go more than a few days. In the meantime, please ping me if you find additional sources. Bearian (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more opinions here on closure options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable at this time, agreeing with the reasons that the sources used in the article and an online search of the name do not show significant coverage in independent sources. Another thing she is a member, doesn't look like a partner at Denton's through its acquisition of Hamilton Harrison & Mathews Law Firm; additionally, notability is not inherited, as is the case with her and Dentons Law Firm. Prof.PMarini (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

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!} 23:16, 21 August 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Tuleap

AfDs for this article:

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

I note the two prior AfDs. I also note the banner at the head containing multiple flags for improvements not addressed since September 2018. I suggest that they have not been addressed because they cannot be addressed. Fails WP:GNG, is improperly sourced, and is WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, Computing, Software, and France. C F A 💬 00:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent What do you have to say for Stephen Schulz's argument towards keeping? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Nothing whatsoever. If you wish to make that argument in this discussion please make it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep then. It has been brought up before that many sources such as Infoworld, LinuxFR, Silicon, a lot of stuff from Opensource.com, etc confer notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Weak Keep I removed the links to Tuleap's own web site and slide decks. There is the one long article in opensource.com which is, however, an interview with one of the founders. This article has a decently long section on the software. And it has been listed as a "top X" software package. I think we need at least one more substantial article to make this a solid "keep". And ideally it shouldn't be from opensource.com because we already have that as a source many times. Lamona (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete as I believe this reads too much like an advertisement WP:PROMO. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
That can be fixed. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:30, 24 August 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 no consensus‎. I'm suprised that after all of these years I have to say this, but if your argument is, "If X is deleted, then you have to delete Y & Z. too!" is not a valid argument to make in an AFD and nothing will happen as a result of this comment. If you believe Y & Z should be deleted, then take the time to nominate them for an AFD discussion yourself. Right now, regarding this article, I don't see a consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

List of ASEAN countries and subdivisions by minimum wage

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

Article seems to be entirely based on original research. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Economics, Geography, and Lists. C F A 💬 02:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. this falls under WP:NOTSTAT Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 04:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Similar with page List of countries by minimum wage and List of first-level administrative divisions by GRDP, they also contain original research. if this page was delete, kindly to delete those page too. Warm Regards. Applaused (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep per WP:CRUFTCRUFT, and WP:SIMPLYLINKINGTOAPOLICYPAGEDOESNOTCONSTITUTEANARGUMENTTHATSOMETHINGFAILSTOCOMPLYWITHTHEPOLICY. jp×g 🗯️ 06:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Similar with page List of countries by minimum wage and List of first-level administrative divisions by GRDP, they also contain original research. if this page was delete, kindly to delete those page too. Warm Regards. Applaused (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Also this page will continue to expand to provinces, states, etc for teh future. Already have the source. Applaused (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete per Miminity, mixing countries and "subdivisions" seems a bit odd, and the fact that all it lists are cities. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
As per my last message, this page will continue to expand, to provinces, states, etc. still in progress, list can be waiting, or you kindly can contribute thx. Applaused (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment the list talks about cities. Except for Singapore which is its own case. I think this topic is note worthy. I recommend changing the name of the article to List of ASEAN cities by minimum wage. If you have countries, subdivisions and cities togethor, you will get an enormous list. I think you should start with cities and then build from that. If it is kept and reliable sources are used. I am in favour of keeping article. O.maximov (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors. If you can offer your opinion on this article, please cast a "vote" on what should happen to it (and why).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep Seems to pass WP:NLIST here and here. It doesn't look like a WP:BEFORE scan was done. More could be found in journals. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist but right now, looking like "No consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete, not an expert but appears to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. StewdioMACK (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment not to WP:BADGER, but how about the sources that I listed? -1ctinus📝🗨 22:55, 28 August 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 no consensus‎. After four weeks, no hint of a consensus appeared. Feel free to renominate in three months. Owen× ☎ 19:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Dandenong West Football Club

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

Contested redirect (courtesy @Nyttend:) and N/C a year ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dandenong Football and Netball Club, but still no evidence of independent sourcing leading to notability for this team. Star Mississippi 13:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. Star Mississippi 13:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
When I came along, I found that it had been redirected on notability grounds, while other clubs in its league still had articles. I have no opinion on notability, but I believe it absurd to have articles on some clubs in a league while redirecting others. If this concludes in deletion, others ought to be handled likewise. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep There's a few non-AFL club articles which are pretty rundown and poorly maintained, I've just done some work fixing this one and there's plenty of independent news coverage about it Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect (or delete, either would be appropriate) The references added since the original nomination all fall under the banner of WP:LOCALCOVERAGE (since most are from the local council newspaper) or non-independent sources. There are two references to the club from the website of the Herald Sun, which ostensibly meets the threshold of being a major statewide newspaper – but a closer look would suggest that those are both the 'Local Footy' section of the newspaper's website, which tends to be an online mirror of affiliated council newspapers – plus they're quite WP:ROUTINE. On the balance of everything I don't think it quite meets a GNG hurdle. Aspirex (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The Herald Sun is tabloid journalism. Not a reliable source. TarnishedPath^talk 11:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment This should really be in 'Games and Sports', not 'Organisations'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspirex (talk • contribs)

It's in both Aspirex, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sports. Star Mississippi 23:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

What was the proposed Redirect target article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect target was Southern_Football_Netball_League#Division_4 Aspirex (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 04:49, 24 August 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 delete‎. The Delete views carried significantly more P&G weight than the Keeps. Owen× ☎ 19:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Educational Basketball

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

Disputed draftification, whcih leaves AfD as the route for articles with insufficient referencing and failing WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball, Africa, and Nigeria. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete with no opposition to draftify, but my BEFORE doesn't show any promise this passes NCORP as I did't find any sources about the organization that satisfied all three of independent, reliable and SIGCOV. Though, happy to be proven wrong by a demonstration of WP:THREE, as always. Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep as it is mentioned in multiple sources. As an academy it has produced some upcoming notable players. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep the worthy subject matter . Article has abundant sources and produces up and coming athletes. GraceAndFavor improving on this by citing sources. GraceAndFavor (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

*)

~~Keep~~ GraceAndFavor working on Article and good sources for this relevant note worthy sports program ~~~~

GraceAndFavor (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC) (you can only cast one "vote" in an AFD so I have struck your duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC))

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I wouldn't call 2 sources "abundant sources" and the purpose of this group doesn't help establish its notability. A source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

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!} 23:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete First two sources are namedrops, the last two are not independent, and while the third source does cover the academy somewhat with only one usable source WP:NORG is not met here. Let'srun (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Lacks significant coverages, the program does not meet the WP:GNG. Though it could become notable enough in future. Nihonjinatny (talk) 15:34, 28 August 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

David Merriman

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

Repeatedly moved from draft by conflicted user, this clearly fails WP:NFILMMAKER and WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation corrected in regards to record deal not being secured -evidence of such clearly provided in articles . Personal information removed about family, as is appropriate. Denseem (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No point of view of skew was taken on this articl, simply correcting inaccuracy and removing personal information Denseem (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Denseem, you don't need to make 5 nearly identical comments saying the same thing. It can discourage participation from other editors and the best way to come to a consensus to have sufficient editor participation in deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I removed the duplicate comments, leaving only one copy behind. Left guide (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep I see 1.5 good sources about him - the AL source is substantial; the first Irish Times is brief but is about him. In the rest he's listed as a collaborator with not much about him, or they are interviews. I didn't find anything else about him. NOM seems to be correct that there are COI issues and there appear to have been possible WP:SOCK issues as well. Good to keep an eye on. Lamona (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
two Variety articles and Screen magazine are substantial sources in the film business. 77.75.96.206 (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that those articles are not about him; he is only name-checked there. So those don't count toward notability, even though they can source some information in the article. Lamona (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 14:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete: I stand by my original prod rationale "there is no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources that establish notability. The currently cited sources offer nothing beyond passing mentions or interviews, including a few hearsay articles". GSS ^💬 16:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I did a cursory search for independent, secondary WP:RS and what's available is pretty sparse. Yes, the Irish Times article is brief and is about him but that is arguably a local source. An independent secondary source that has in-depth, substantial coverage in one or more articles would be more clearly convincing. I got more more notability about the architectural professor of the same name, but relatively little outside exclusively local sources for this musician, lacking the widespread secondary coverage required for notability. GuardianH (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete - It's a close call but I must agree with the other delete voters above. Merriman has been mentioned in the reliable media a few times but mostly in the form of brief mentions in articles about other people or projects. The WP article attempts a WP:REFBOMB to sources that are actually about the people or incidents that Merriman's films are about, and the films themselves received little notice in their own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:46, 28 August 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

LM358

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

A common commercial op amp. In my opinion it does not meet the Notability criteria to warrant its own article. Did not find sufficient independent coverage. It is mentioned but not in depth. As opposed to the 741, which has evident historical significance, the LM358 is not particularly special or impactful in electronics literature. Alan Islas (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

My main issue with deleting LM358 is that it's a widespread, industry-standard "jellybean" part - they are everywhere, source-able from multiple manufacturers, used in places ranging from audio applications (now obsolete?) but also motion and light sensors, power supplies etc. Perhaps it's so common that it's invisible!

EEVBlog video "The TOP 5 Jellybean OPAMP's" which mentions LM358 right off the bat - "they specifically call it an Industry-Standard op-amp, because it pretty much is"
"Two commonly used op-amp ICs, the LM324 and LM358, have been the go-to choice for engineers and hobbyists alike"
"The ubiquitous LM324 / LM358 / LM321 ... TS321 op-amp family ... who has not used one of these in a design .. ?".

Even the reference on List of LM-series integrated circuits states "Several generations of pin-compatible descendants of the original parts have since become de facto standard electronic components."

I don't know if there's enough "real" sources available to keep this, but as ICs go there's more in this world than, say, 68030s...

Some options might be to expand this article - talking about its ubiquity rather than its characteristics perhaps - or else merge this in Operational amplifier (a new category of "other historically significant opamps"?), or spin it into a general article of historically significant opamps.

Note that there is also the LM324, a quad-channel op-amp in a similar category, and the LM321 (single-channel version). Neither of these have an article, though. Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
consider WikiProject Deletion sorting/Engineering as well Hornpipe2 (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Could use a tiny bit of work but I do not see why this should be deleted at all. Already a lot of other similar articles but for different part numbers and they all seem in-line with what is needed. If it must be deleted then please make sure all these parts and their info end up somewhere else - I could see all of these part numbers being combined into a single article perhaps or grouped by similar function. But I think it's fine the way it is / just needs some TLC. Colinstu (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep!

As another user said, this is an industry standard since the 20th century.

Its worthy of a wikipedia page, but needs a bit of work. 176.12.177.191 (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: the keep arguments are not policy based, but seem much stronger as a merge argument. Is there a valid merge target? Are there sources that would indicate an article of sufficient length to be useful can be reliably sourced?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep

Yeah the 741 is more notable. But this is a pretty mainstream component. I've added a short bit about the early history of the device. It would be good to have some coverage of the variants, and dates when different manufactureers announced there version. It would take considerable effort to find the trade journals, but I'm sure the coverage is there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:01, 29 August 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Mlaka Maliro

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. Can't find sufficient sources to establish notability in any context. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Africa. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep or ~~Redirect to~~: Music_of_Malawi#Lucius_Banda,_Evison_Matafale_and_Mlaka_Maliro I found lots of GNG. WP:NMUSICIAN states that:

Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart: in this case, subject had the album titled Dzanja Lalemba that was the bestseller 14 years ago countrywide. Subject is also the pioneer of Malawi Contemporary Music and one of the country's notable musician [1]https://mwnation.com/mlaka-soldier-set-for-stage-reunion/.
Has released two or more albums on a major record label: subject has released 13 albums under the renowed and the first band in Malawi, the Zembani Band, owned by Lucius Banda [2]https://mwnation.com/mlaka-soldier-set-for-stage-reunion/, [3]https://mwnation.com/mlaka-rolls-back-hands-of-time/ . I found this that talks about subject. I also found records in printed books, see here, and this in Dutch , this too, etc. To me this provides GNG that can be used to sustain the article per WP:NEXIST.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any uninvolved thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:28, 22 August 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Personal Capital

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

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, none of the included sources meet the criteria. They are a mixture of sources that rely entirely on interviews/information provided by the company/execs or regurgitated PR, none include in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing 12:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing 12:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep and expand. It looks like there are some articles from NYT, WSJ, and Forbes about the company or its products. So, I'd say there are reliable secondary sources that are exclusively about the company. But, I agree they are not in-depth, so I could see an argument for deletion on those grounds. Niashervin (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Niashervin, I agree there are articles in those publications but the question is, do they meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. For example, this Forbes article merely regurgitates this announcement - not "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND. This other Forbes article is from a "contributor" and is not deemed a reliable source for the purposes of establishing notability - see WP:FORBES. This in the NYT is a "puff profile" which relies entirely on information provided through an interview with the CEO and from the company itself accompanied by a test run of the service, it has very little "Independent Content" about the *company* and fails ORGIND. Finally this WSJ article is almost entirely about a different company with the topic company getting a mention-in-passing with information provided by an exec, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. HighKing 12:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:49, 21 August 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 redirect‎ to Ian Parovel#Filmography. This has already been relisted twice without generating real discussion except from user suggesting redirect instead. Even the individual trying to improve the article acknowledges the lack of better sources so far. No policy-based argument to keep has arisen. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The Podcats

(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 12:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and France. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Ian_Parovel#Filmography: not opposed to keep (broadcast on major French networks during years, some sources but no time to improve it) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I cleaned up the page roughly. Added a source that mentions 4 awards (but I could not verify them with other sources) and good audience at the start of the series. The series was also distributed in Portugal and Poland. That could be enough but more (and better) sources would be nice.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Could also be added to and redirected to List of French animated television series (I am opposed to deletion given what I mentioned above).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:20, 23 August 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 no consensus‎. Due to lack of participation. Malinaccier (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Axel Meise

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

Sources are about the company; fails to meet WPANYBIO; COI (created by the employee - see the name of the author). BoraVoro (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

maybe to draftify? BoraVoro (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

A conflict of interest is not a valid reason for deletion. While some cited sources are about the company, the article also cites multiple good sources that discuss the subject in detail, for example AW Architektur & Wohnen (footnote 1), Die Welt (footnote 4), or Handelsblatt (footnote 12). Also, I think that the article meets WP:ANYBIO #1. Meise has receieved well-known awards, which the article demonstrates. --88.20.56.144 (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Weak Delete. Not enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The welt.de is the only source that may pass as proof of notability at this time; awmagazin.de is somehow local, industry-related; handelsblatt.com is mixed with an interview, so might not be enoguh proof of notaility. Even counting, handelsblatt.com, that makes for only 2 sources. The other sources that appear through an online search have not been used/cited in Wikipedia, so their independence/reliability is not yet established, i.e., may not be enough to prove WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Prof.PMarini (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 29 August 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Godenu

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Some of the sources linked in the article (like the first and third) don't even mention "Godenu". The fourth source mentions Godenu only once, as the "Gbi-Godenu Volta Region IFAD/SCIMP Project", seemingly a different thing. The second source does mention Godenu, but it's pretty brief. Other sources linked aren't reliable or aren't independent. I can find mentions of Godenu, like in this article, but that's it. toweli (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Geography, and Ghana. toweli (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep I don't see any reason to delete this, the problem is it should probably be at Gbi-Godenu instead of its current title. Searching the ruler brings up multiple hits even once you scroll past the primary ones. SportingFlyer T·C 22:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete per toweli's comments. There's no significant coverage about this article. Galaxybeing (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom, and because RS don’t support this. —Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep and Rename per Sporting Flyer and:

https://www.royalhouseofgodenu.org/Godenu/ https://www.gbiviwo.com/gbi-godenu-chiefs-queens https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/V-R-Ensure-proper-training-for-recruits-to-save-lives-ndash-Gbi-Godenu-divisional-chief-1836368 https://gna.org.gh/2023/08/clashes-between-gbi-godenu-residents-and-police-leave-two-dead-one-injured/ http://1900.ethnia.org/polity.php?ASK_CODE=GHTF&ASK_YY=1945&ASK_MM=04&ASK_DD=15&SL=en[] https://ghanaiantimes.com.gh/2-die-1-injured-12-arrested-following-clashes-between-police-residents-in-hohoe/ Djflem (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Participants, plesase don't dump a bunch of bare URLS in a discussion with no explanation or sense of priority. Use your experience and knowledge and highlight 3 or 4 of the best secondary source in the form of diffs, please. You all know how to do this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 28 August 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 06:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Kaveri–Vaigai Link Canal

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Tamil Nadu. CptViraj (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

delete as clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. We don't make articles on projects that are merely "envisioned". Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

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 05:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 23 August 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 no consensus‎. No additional participation with two relistings, so there's little point in a third one. Feel free to renominate in one month. Owen× ☎ 12:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Dean Hawkshaw

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

Hawkshaw fails GNG with a lack of SIGCOV. Dougal18 (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep I don't see nothing wrong with the article, a full professional Scotland footballer with good basic coverage. Passes WP:BASIC in my view. Govvy (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep - Third party sourcing. WP:GNG passes.BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment 12/17 sources are either stats or non-independent of Hawkshaw. Donegallive - Hawkshaw injured an opponent, Courier - he's playing after concussion, Daily Record 1 - "while Dean Hawkshaw has stepped up his rehabilitation from a knee injury", Daily Record 2, routine transfer news and Cumnock Chronicle "GLENAFTON brought new signing Dean Hawkshaw, pictured, into the starting 11 on Saturday and he made an instant impact." That isn't a GNG pass or a pass of BASIC. Dougal18 (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:15, 20 August 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Armoured One

AfDs for this article:

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

Looks like not meeting NCORP, no reliable media. BoraVoro (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

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 13:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No significant coverage independent sources to demonstrate notability. At most coverage is in local industry sites; not sufficient. Prof.PMarini (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Fails NCORP. There's this and this and a brief mention in the NYT, along with some obviously sponsored posts in industry magazines. Not enough in-depth coverage of the company to meet NCORP. C F A 💬 18:49, 30 August 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 no consensus‎. No new comments after two relistings leaves this discussion as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Edward Henry Burke Cooper

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

All referencing appears to be from Oxford, UK-specific remembrance group publications. Cooper served honorably, and died, for an incredibly honorable cause but Wikipedia is not a memorial. GPL93 (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Spain, and United Kingdom. GPL93 (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep - I've added four citations from books that mention him. (Most sources refer to him under his stage name "Edward Burke".) Nvss132 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Most are quick mentions and don't appear to go in-depth on the subject. I'm not sure that's enough to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review would be helpful at this point. "Fails GNG" is not specific enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 22 August 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 redirect‎ to Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard. More discussion would have been helpful, but no policy-based opposition to its removal has emerged. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Cardholder Information Security Program

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

Single ref in About section; Visa program established in 2001 and then shut down in 2004, receiving little WP:SIGCOV. Cursory Google search appears that it was revived later under PCI DSS, but nothing that would pass WP:GNG for this specific program. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 08:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 08:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

To Editor: Please don't delete this page. It's an important reference to a set of security guidelines that are still often referenced. Informing people that it's been superceeded by another security rule (PCI) is really valuable. Please do not remove it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.33.159.90 (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Not opposed to redirect, seems to be mentioned on target page Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard as per Dclemens1971. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 14:44, 26 August 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. Owen× ☎ 14:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Semantics and Pragmatics

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

Non-notable journal. Three sources are listed, two of them not independent. The third one shows that this jourl is not listed in any selective database. WP:BEFORE does not unearth additional independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

~~Keep.~~ Articles in this journal are cited with remarkable frequency for this subfield, so this easily passes Criterion 2 of WP:NJOURNALS. Botterweg14 (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Article is now updated with additional independent sources that clearly establish notability, including a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy citation that explicitly states that it's a top journal in its subfield, easily satisfying Criterion 1 of WP:NJOURNALS.

Now updated further with more independent references, including Barbara Partee's contribution to The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics, which names the journal as part of a notable development in the field, thus satisfying Criterion 3 as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Botterweg14 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Janssen/zimmerman ef: not independent (Zimmerman is an editorial board member); Philips reference: self-published blog; Haspelmath: in-passing mention on a blog; Partee ref: impossible to evaluate without a clearer link; Potts: self-published blog and also not independent (Potts is an editorial board member). So, no, "speedy keep" is absolutely not justified. Rhetorical question: if this journal is so crucial, how come it isn't indexed in any selective databases? --Randykitty (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Reply: I have now updated the article again so that it cites an earlier edition of the SEP article, for which Theo Janssen was the sole author. Since Janssen is not among the 403 members of the editorial board, this is an independent source. Since this settles the issue of notability, we can discuss your other concerns about the other sources on the article's talk page if that is what you would like to do. Botterweg14 (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge to its publisher, Linguistic Society of America. Not notable, per RK. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion of citation counts as a criterion for inclusion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

)

~~Keep~~ Weak keep. A 2023 impact factor of 1.1 according to Journal Citation Reports (thus meeting WP:NJOURNALS); highlighted as a significant journal in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, as noted by Botterweg14. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: No, it doesn't meet NJournals. Clarivate now also reports an IF for journals included in ESCI, but ESCI does not convey notability as it is known to be less selective (even including some predatory journals). --Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I think J. Milburn's point was about the magnitude of the impact factor, not about inclusion in ESCI. But once again, this is a moot point given the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy citation. Botterweg14 (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok; point taken about NJournals. My mistake. Changing to a weak keep. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain? I feel like I'm missing something here. Botterweg14 (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

At present, the relevant text of WP:NJOURNALS is: 'For the purpose of C1, having an impact factor assigned by Journal Citation Reports usually qualifies (except for journals indexed in the non-selective Emerging Sources Citation Index)'. Maybe that's a good rule, maybe it isn't, but I was wrong when I said that this journal meets the criteria (of that not-quite-a-guideline!) on the grounds of having an impact factor. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you’re saying, but again I think the SEP and Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics sources (among others) establish C1 clearly enough that this is a moot point. Hence my surprise at your switch to a merely weak keep. Botterweg14 (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Considered to be important by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, meets criteria 1 of WP:NJOURNALS Mrfoogles (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Plus, it's parent publisher's page is already long. Wouldn't be a good situation in which to merge. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: From the quote given, it's quite obvious that the Stanford Encyclopedia cite is just an in passing listing, without any in-depth discussion of the journal. No way is this a meet of NJournals criteria 1. --Randykitty (talk) 07:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Just to add related information (I'm not an involved Wikipedia person, so I won't try to provide judgements on keeping or not), SemPrag is likely not behind in progress of notability in comparison to the other three main journals in formal semantics. E.g.: WorldCat for SemPrag is on pace with Natural Language Semantics's WorldCat library inclusions. I'd also like to reiterate a previous comment above: In her discussion of the history of formal semantics, care is taken by Barbara Partee (well-known to be one of the most influential semanticists alive today) to situate the journal within her sub-discussion of the then-recent rise of semantics and pragmatics being considered a unified research area (p. 28). She does not try to discuss the journal and its status in full, but the intent seems clear. Anmkato (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: What C1 says is "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." It does not require extended discussion in the aforementioned reliable sources. If it did, then inclusion in a selective indexing service would not on its own suffice to establish notability. In this case, what the SEP says is "The most important journals in the field are Linguistics and Philosophy, the Journal of Semantics, Natural Language Semantics, and Semantics and Pragmatics". So even putting aside the supplementary Martin Haspelmath and Colin Phillips references, this is top notch sourcing for the claim that this is not merely an influential journal in its subject area, but in fact one of the most influential. That clearly satisfies C1.

Of course, notable topics can sometimes be impossible to cover due to lack of appropriate sources, but that's a separate issue and I would be surprised if anyone felt it applied here. Botterweg14 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: the difference between an in-passing mention in an encyclopedia article, no matter how laudatory, and a listing in a selective database is that the former is the opinion of one or two people, whereas the latter is the result of an in-depth examination by a committee of specialists. As an aside, while not ideal, I could live with a merge as suggested by Headbomb. --Randykitty (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: If that's what makes a difference, then your objection isn't with the absence of an extended discussion in the cited source, but rather that you don't regard the Stanford Encyclopedia as reliable. If that is the discussion you want to have, we can switch to having that discussion. Botterweg14 (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please note that the article does not qualify for a speedy keep; feel free to revise your !vote if you still believe it should be kept. Additional views about the proposed merger would also be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Botterweg14, I didn't say that this encyclopedia is not a reliable source. I said that an in-passing mention does not meet NJournals (and even less WP:GNG). --Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep: seems to pass a straightforward reading of NJournals #1, which doesn't mention the depth of discussion required "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." There isn't much coverage though so a merge might be appropriate, but a separate merge discussion can be opened if this is kept anyway. Shapeyness (talk) 13:45, 4 September 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Rolandas Jasevičius

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. PROD was contested but unable to locate independent significant coverage of this individual. C 679 06:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing and Lithuania. C 679 06:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to have been well-known in Lithuania, which Lithuanian media did you search in your WP:BEFORE? I found the basics in an Lithuanian Sports Encyclopedia, coverage of his European bronze in 2004 (career highlight = not WP:ROUTINE) and WP:SUSTAINED coverage of an assault later in 2004 that halted his career. Geschichte (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep, per Geschichte. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments/Question Competing at the Olympics is no longer sufficient to show WP notability, especially when you're badly beaten in the opening round (54-21). A bronze medal at the European championships doesn't meet any SNG and his semi-final bout was stopped in the second round of the fight (where he lost to someone who lost in the second round of the Olympics). The coverage of his bronze medal was just coverage of the results of the Lithuanian boxers in the event. His short listing in the Lithuanian Sports Encyclopedia is more of a database entry than an article. Being a crime victim doesn't make him WP notable, either. Since he fails WP:NOLY and WP:NBOX, he needs to meet WP:GNG. I don't read Lithuanian, but I can use Google translate. Can someone please point me to the coverage that shows he meets WP:GNG? Thank you. Papaursa (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have a difference of opinion on the quality of the sourcing. Do we have any boxing fans that can weigh in?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The crime part isn't supposed to make him notable as a victim, but is highly significant and relevant to his career trajectory. WP:SUSTAINED seems unquestionably met in my opinion. Specific details of results, first and second round etc. aren't necessarily relevant for the discussion. WP:NOLY is irrelevant since it states "Significant coverage is likely to exist for...", but by discussing specific coverage found by someone, we are past that. Geschichte (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm confused. WP:NOLY says significant coverage is likely to exist for Olympic medalists, which he is not. Why are we "well past..discussing" meeting WP:GNG? It's also not clear to me that competing in the Olympics and later getting mugged is what sustained coverage is about. It seems to me like either an SNG or the GNG needs to be met. I'm not saying the GNG can't be met, just that I haven't seen convincing evidence it is. That's why I didn't vote to delete, because I feel there may well be significant coverage. People with potentially promising careers who are killed or severely injured in auto accidents or crimes don't become notable because of their misfortune. I'm not trying to be difficult, I really just want to understand the prevailing thinking. Papaursa (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any uninvolved thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:26, 22 August 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 no consensus‎. Limited participation and no agreement after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

List of Drum Corps International World Championship finalists

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

I don’t know what to make of this. WP:NOTADATABASE. Hodgepodge of unsourced statistics. MOS:ACCESS violations that I don’t even know how to begin to address. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Music. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. -- Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep: The first analogy that came to mind with this article, a list of finalists in a competition with more than two finalists each tournament, was the College World Series, the finals of the NCAA baseball tournament, which features 8 teams. Indeed, there is a comprehensive list of finalists there at the Teams reaching the finals section. So by analogy, this should also stay. Mach61 22:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment: While I would prefer to keep it since I find it useful as an avid fan of drum corps, there is also not a strong precedent to keep. However, MOS:ACCESS is not a reason to delete, and there are plenty of sources out there that can be used to verify the finalists. (Finals, up until the mid-2000s, were covered by several national newspapers; I would add some, but Newspapers.com is down). Thus as it stands, the deletion rationale is pretty weak. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
My reference to MOS:ACCESS is that I wouldn't know how to begin addressing the violations with this article, but if we end up keeping it, I'll find something. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:21, 26 August 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Very Filmy

(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 12:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Wait, but why you actually said it passes WP:GNG earlier? And you removed the notability tags twice when I added them. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Opinions change. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Donaldd23, Sure, I just wanted to seek some clarification. Better late than never. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep: sources covering production, controversy and critical appraisal are in my opinion enough for this to be retained. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Momina Duraid: I’d suggest we redirect this, if not deleted, because it doesn’t meet GNG. Fwiw, it was created by LOUTSOCK (Special:Contributions/154.80.67.71) and later expanded by Nauman335, our acclaimed UPE sock master. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep - As per WP:Notability (television), there are sources available on Google search which can be added into the article from reliable sources, making it a notable television show.202.165.250.79 (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
ATA: WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Not just saying. I actually google it and I found below articles other than the ones included in the article.

1, 2, 3, 4. 202.165.250.79 (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Some of the URLs are broken. Please fix them and I’ll assess them. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I can’t access the first two URLs; the links are broken. The other two don’t meet GNG. This one is not a RS, and this one is TRIVIALMENTIONS and without a byline, so I wouldn’t consider it for GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I just went through your talk page, and I feel you are not gonna support the logically stated "Vote in favor" cause you, yourself can Google the title of the page and then decide whether it does meet WP:GNG or not cause apparently there is coverage about the show. Anyways, "Note to the closing admin", consider the search results prior to deciding your outcome as I feel User:Saqib should, rather than putting up an article for WP:Afd, focus on improving them. Peace out ! 202.165.250.70 (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I just went through your talk page, and I feel you are not gonna support the logically stated "Vote in favor" Sorry, I don’t quite get it. Can you explain a bit more? you, yourself can Google the title of the page and then decide whether it does meet WP:GNG or no I did a Google search and couldn’t find anything to help establish GNG. That’s why I asked you to provide coverage that you believe meets GNG. The onus is on you to provide that coverage since you voted to keep the page, not on me. I feel User:Saqib should, rather than putting up an article for WP:Afd, focus on improving them. I didn’t nominate this page for deletion. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:51, 27 August 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Allan Ivo Steel

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

Aside from dying in World War I, this player does not seem to rise to WP:NCRICKET. I already removed some information about his brother and his mother, as they lacked sources. The article is looking pretty bare at this point. Hornpipe2 (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Hornpipe2 (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
weak delete: Found a book describing him as a "first class cricketeer" [4] but it's barely a few paragraphs. This is also a brief mention [5]. Just don't have enough on this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Mentioned in plenty of book sources, in quite some detail. AA (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Where, we don't have any listed? Oaktree b (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Final Wicket: Test and First Class Cricketers Killed in the Great War (which I have) goes into great detail on him. Wisden has an obituary on him in its 1918 edition, which also goes into a good degree of detail. I'd imagine there's coverage in newspapers from the time too, The Times certainly mentions him following his death. AA (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
This is all fine and I appreciate the additional resources added, but, does that still make him a "notable" player in the eyes of WP:NCRICKET? I'm hardly knowledgeable of cricket, does

"he represented Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and also Middlesex in two first-class matches in 1912."

counts as "Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation"? Hornpipe2 (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
NCRICKET goes on to say "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." Playing for Middlesex in first-class cricket counts as "the highest domestic level", so it depends on whether he has "sufficient coverage". Going by what AA has written, he probably does. JH (talk page) 08:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm inclined toward keep here, although the very worst case situation would be a redirect to List of Middlesex County Cricket Club players with a note added to include the reference detail. There's a Wisden obituary with some detail and I would be surprised if there weren't other obituaries - Eton, The Times etc.... Given his family and status this seems very, very likely - I'd suggest that with any war death that a significant BEFORE should really take place as there's often a scad load of detail out there and as a person he would appear to me to be clearly notable in terms of the sorts of things we'd look for. The book that is referred to above is usually a detailed source as well, and Sandford also appears to mention him in his The Final Over: The Cricketers of Summer 1914 - there's story about him uncovering a diamond worth £1 million in Kashmir. No idea where that came from, but there's clearly coverage out there about the chap and he seems notable to me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need to hear from a few more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Three short paragraphs in various sources, which I would say delete; but according to @AA, detailed coverage in multiple books as well as a Times article. This sourcing seems to pass WP:GNG, even if his individual case is not necessarily different from others. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

He's on my list to expand. I have an interest in WWI cricketers. Have to juggle that with my Hampshire cricket expansion project! AA (talk) 18:09, 23 August 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 redirect‎ to List of Thai television soap operas. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Buang Ruk Kamathep

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Comment: Not sure what the "cross-wiki spam" claim is supposed to mean. It's a nationally televised TV series, and has the usual press coverage[6][7][8] and magazine covers[9][10], though as is often the case most information seems to be from press releases. It's 15 years old now so some sources may have gone offline. That said, The current article is such an uninformative substub that there's not much to lose if this is deleted without prejudice. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep. The sources presented by Paul 012 can be added to the page and I consider them enough to show this is notable. A redirect should be considered anyway.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

If a redirect is the path chosen, it could be to List of Thai television soap operas.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

No objection to a redirect. Mccapra (talk) 22:41, 7 September 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Social disorganization theory

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

Not structured like an encyclopedic article, and while this topic might be notable, this appears to be a case where I would just WP:TNT and start over. Almost no inline citations, a bit of possible WP:SYNTH, and WP:MOS violations all over. Best to reduce to a stub, draftify, or delete. Awesome Aasim 22:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Another interesting idea but poorly organized. Can we rescue this one? Bearian (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Draftify to allow interested editors to improve. Right now, it fails the WP:NOT test of WP:GNG but it seems like other participants see value in rescuing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
This is a fundamental component of criminological theory (I am a theoretical criminologist), but I agree the page needs work. This is my first time posting, but I'm happpy to figure out the process and contribute, with appropriate citations and modern-day applications. Rebekahgz (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep, but improve. The article seems failed WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, it pushes away unprepared users. But the theory itself is relevant to everyday life, with RS such as this one and skillful writing, it could be a very interesting piece. I’m not against the suggestion of WP:TNT, though. Nihonjinatny (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Draftify to give editors time to work on it. It seems notable. Ben Azura (talk) 08:00, 28 August 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 merge‎ to 2004 Madrid train bombings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Jamal Zougam

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

WP:BLP1E. Merge content where appropriate into 2004 Madrid train bombings, then redirect the page. Longhornsg (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Terrorism, and Spain. Longhornsg (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment judging from the Spanish article, it's likely that if the main article was brought to FA level comprehensiveness a biography should be written on him per size split reasons, given that he is one of the key figures in one of the deadliest terror attacks ever. So, if this is merged, I would not oppose it being split out again at some time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, he does have (not counting life sentences), the third longest prison sentence of all time. I feel that is perhaps a claim to notability. From what I'm looking at an article could definitely be written on him - BLP1E is for low level crimes, not ones that kill nearly 200 people. The other two conditions of the policy are the person being a "low profile individual" (he is not) and that the event not be a SIGNIFICANT historical event in which the role of the person is well documented (he is). So he does not fail BLP1E. With more notorious cases there are often the sources to write both, and the reason he is the one with an article is because he seemed to be one of the more prominent figures. Same reason we have an article on Mohamed Atta. So either keep or merge for now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Morocco. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge the article to 2004 Madrid train bombings. Delete the person. Polygnotus (talk) 12:11, 25 August 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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 __NOTOC__
-Below are the top 25 [[WP:AFD|AfD]] discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters.  The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc.  This page is updated by a [[User:Cyberbot I|bot]] roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 20:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC).
+Below are the top 25 [[WP:AFD|AfD]] discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters.  The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc.  This page is updated by a [[User:Cyberbot I|bot]] roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 01:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC).
 {|class="wikitable"
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 !Score
 |-
-|[[#Martha Mbugua|Martha Mbugua]]||{{Time ago|20240807180337}}||1||6656||0||'''1777.24'''
+|[[#Martha Mbugua|Martha Mbugua]]||{{Time ago|20240807180337}}||1||6656||0||'''1792.79'''
 |-
-|[[#Anguilla at the 2014 Commonwealth Games|Anguilla at the 2014 Commonwealth Games]]||{{Time ago|20240806142338}}||2||6026||0||'''1759.7'''
+|[[#Tuleap |Tuleap (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20240807215021}}||3||6485||0||'''1631.64'''
 |-
-|[[#Tuleap |Tuleap (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20240807215021}}||3||6485||0||'''1616.13'''
+|[[#List of ASEAN countries and subdivisions by minimum wage|List of ASEAN countries and subdivisions by minimum wage]]||{{Time ago|20240808014256}}||4||7473||0||'''1569.74'''
 |-
-|[[#List of ASEAN countries and subdivisions by minimum wage|List of ASEAN countries and subdivisions by minimum wage]]||{{Time ago|20240808014256}}||4||7473||0||'''1554.17'''
+|[[#Dandenong West Football Club|Dandenong West Football Club]]||{{Time ago|20240809133556}}||2||6398||0||'''1561.88'''
 |-
-|[[#Dandenong West Football Club|Dandenong West Football Club]]||{{Time ago|20240809133556}}||2||6398||0||'''1546.21'''
+|[[#Educational Basketball|Educational Basketball]]||{{Time ago|20240809204535}}||4||6348||0||'''1440.43'''
 |-
-|[[#Educational Basketball|Educational Basketball]]||{{Time ago|20240809204535}}||4||6348||0||'''1424.8'''
+|[[#David Merriman|David Merriman]]||{{Time ago|20240810172508}}||3||6852||0||'''1428.43'''
 |-
-|[[#David Merriman|David Merriman]]||{{Time ago|20240810172508}}||3||6852||0||'''1412.77'''
+|[[#LM358|LM358]]||{{Time ago|20240813130542}}||1||5547||0||'''1375.67'''
 |-
-|[[#Samsun clashes (1920)|Samsun clashes (1920)]]||{{Time ago|20240813202846}}||0||3833||0||'''1408.13'''
+|[[#Mlaka Maliro|Mlaka Maliro]]||{{Time ago|20240815103808}}||0||4783||0||'''1309.09'''
 |-
-|[[#LM358|LM358]]||{{Time ago|20240813130542}}||1||5547||0||'''1360.11'''
+|[[#Personal Capital|Personal Capital]]||{{Time ago|20240814121223}}||1||5625||0||'''1306.42'''
 |-
-|[[#Tal Afar uprising|Tal Afar uprising]]||{{Time ago|20240813203305}}||1||4943||0||'''1357.96'''
+|[[#The Podcats|The Podcats]]||{{Time ago|20240815124017}}||1||3796||0||'''1253.13'''
 |-
-|[[#Mlaka Maliro|Mlaka Maliro]]||{{Time ago|20240815103808}}||0||4783||0||'''1293.54'''
+|[[#Axel Meise|Axel Meise]]||{{Time ago|20240815140751}}||1||3831||0||'''1248.2'''
 |-
-|[[#Personal Capital|Personal Capital]]||{{Time ago|20240814121223}}||1||5625||0||'''1290.89'''
+|[[#Godenu|Godenu]]||{{Time ago|20240813162142}}||3||5647||0||'''1215.67'''
 |-
-|[[#Finn Ecrepont|Finn Ecrepont]]||{{Time ago|20240813114218}}||2||4037||0||'''1284.01'''
+|[[#Kaveri–Vaigai Link Canal|Kaveri–Vaigai Link Canal]]||{{Time ago|20240816035750}}||1||2774||0||'''1206.96'''
 |-
-|[[#Dirk Van de Put|Dirk Van de Put]]||{{Time ago|20240813224408}}||2||3713||0||'''1250.85'''
+|[[#Dean Hawkshaw|Dean Hawkshaw]]||{{Time ago|20240813120003}}||4||3798||0||'''1198.69'''
 |-
-|[[#The Podcats|The Podcats]]||{{Time ago|20240815124017}}||1||3796||0||'''1237.61'''
+|[[#Armoured One |Armoured One (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20240816122547}}||1||3298||0||'''1181.29'''
 |-
-|[[#Axel Meise|Axel Meise]]||{{Time ago|20240815140751}}||1||3831||0||'''1232.51'''
+|[[#Edward Henry Burke Cooper|Edward Henry Burke Cooper]]||{{Time ago|20240815043136}}||2||3869||0||'''1177.13'''
 |-
-|[[#Godenu|Godenu]]||{{Time ago|20240813162142}}||3||4554||0||'''1220.07'''
+|[[#Cardholder Information Security Program|Cardholder Information Security Program]]||{{Time ago|20240815084050}}||2||4233||0||'''1164.6'''
 |-
-|[[#Kaveri–Vaigai Link Canal|Kaveri–Vaigai Link Canal]]||{{Time ago|20240816035750}}||1||2774||0||'''1191.39'''
+|[[#Semantics and Pragmatics|Semantics and Pragmatics]]||{{Time ago|20240813142216}}||4||12179||0||'''1156.98'''
 |-
-|[[#Dean Hawkshaw|Dean Hawkshaw]]||{{Time ago|20240813120003}}||4||3798||0||'''1183.03'''
+|[[#Rolandas Jasevičius|Rolandas Jasevičius]]||{{Time ago|20240815060947}}||2||6981||0||'''1152.6'''
 |-
-|[[#Armoured One |Armoured One (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20240816122547}}||1||3298||0||'''1165.6'''
+|[[#List of Drum Corps International World Championship finalists|List of Drum Corps International World Championship finalists]]||{{Time ago|20240817085556}}||1||5273||0||'''1100.1'''
 |-
-|[[#Edward Henry Burke Cooper|Edward Henry Burke Cooper]]||{{Time ago|20240815043136}}||2||3869||0||'''1161.51'''
+|[[#Very Filmy|Very Filmy]]||{{Time ago|20240815124152}}||3||8775||0||'''1083.08'''
 |-
-|[[#Cardholder Information Security Program|Cardholder Information Security Program]]||{{Time ago|20240815084050}}||2||4233||0||'''1148.92'''
+|[[#Allan Ivo Steel|Allan Ivo Steel]]||{{Time ago|20240815174842}}||3||7198||0||'''1067.13'''
 |-
-|[[#Semantics and Pragmatics|Semantics and Pragmatics]]||{{Time ago|20240813142216}}||4||12179||0||'''1141.46'''
+|[[#Buang Ruk Kamathep|Buang Ruk Kamathep]]||{{Time ago|20240818053022}}||1||3405||0||'''1058.11'''
 |-
-|[[#Rolandas Jasevičius|Rolandas Jasevičius]]||{{Time ago|20240815060947}}||2||6981||0||'''1137.07'''
+|[[#Social disorganization theory|Social disorganization theory]]||{{Time ago|20240818223340}}||0||3502||0||'''1057.42'''
 |-
-|[[#List of Drum Corps International World Championship finalists|List of Drum Corps International World Championship finalists]]||{{Time ago|20240817085556}}||1||5273||0||'''1084.54'''
+|[[#Jamal Zougam|Jamal Zougam]]||{{Time ago|20240818060521}}||1||4355||0||'''1056.54'''
 |}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Mbugua}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anguilla at the 2014 Commonwealth Games}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuleap (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ASEAN countries and subdivisions by minimum wage}}
@@ Line 68: / Line 67: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Educational Basketball}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Merriman}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsun clashes (1920)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LM358}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tal Afar uprising}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mlaka Maliro}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal Capital}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finn Ecrepont}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirk Van de Put}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Podcats}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axel Meise}}
@@ Line 86: / Line 81: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolandas Jasevičius}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Drum Corps International World Championship finalists}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Very Filmy}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allan Ivo Steel}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buang Ruk Kamathep}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social disorganization theory}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamal Zougam}}