Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 19 May 21 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to S/V Merlin. Editors are welcome to selectively merge content from the history of the article to the target. signed, Rosguill talk 17:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Merlin[edit]

Chip Merlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I had declined this at AfC and still don't see references showing notability despite being moved to mainspace by another editor. CNMall41 (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep subject meets notability requirements for an athlete and has been covered in a variety of sailing publications and websites. I feel it is worth noting that off the bat CNMall41 immediately accused me without evidence of having a personal connection to the subject and seems to bear some personal grudge against this article, previously having said they would step away from being involved in the editorial process.Sailbanshee (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sports career coverage is notable and significant and subject has notable legal and writing career with well cited sourcesAnatomyoffear (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Article is well cited and establishes notability as a prominent athlete in the world of yacht racing with a verified track record and unique, well documented story covered in a variety of independent, verifiable sources.Captbloodrock (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote. Since you moved to the main space, I am wondering if you can point out the references that specifically show how subject meets WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:::Multiple articles covering subject in yachting and boating websites, coverage in major newspapers, documentation of subject competing and placing in major yachting events…Captbloodrock (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I am asking for the specific ones. The ones that discuss him in-depth that are considered reliable under Wikipedia standards. Are you able to point those out?--CNMall41 (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::::: The Tampa Bay Times article, the Museler article(s), the article about his obtaining a new ship for an established boat racing team, the multiple articles about his participation and placing in races… I thought the original article author was being paranoid but I’m beginning to side with them there’s some bias on your part against this article’s subject. I believe this article meets notability requirements which is why I moved it. I’ve stated my case for such and won’t engage in any more nit-picking. You put the article up for a vote, let the vote decide.Captbloodrock (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is a discussion, not a vote. As far as the WP:aspersions, feel free to take it to WP:ANI. If you are unable to point out specific references other than naming a publication, I am unsure how to further discuss. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm, you are talking about this Tampa Bay Times reference which is a routine announcement about his law firm. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is well sourced and subject meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) for both his law career but especially sports athletic career, which the article documents and cites well with appropriate citations.IOProfessor (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right, given that (1) this has been confounded by confirmed socks, (2) the article shows signs of COI, and (3) this is the only thing in your entire edit history, I must ask how you discovered this particular AfD, IOProfessor. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 23:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to confirmation that socks dominated the previous keep !votes. Will strike through the sock comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- as a person who previously voted keep, I’m voting keep again. And since I am not a sock, I assume it will still be counted. Anatomyoffear (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Anatomyoffear and User:IOProfessor were listed among suspected socks of Captbloodrock but unconfirmed, therefore I did not strike through their remarks. Note, though, that IOProfessor's only Wikipedia contribution ever was to chime in on this specific AfD. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s actually possible for multiple people to disagree with you. I am in fact my own whole and separate person, and I can see perfectly well that you’re wrong and doubling down. Let me know if you’d like me to send you a picture of myself and today’s newspaper to prove that I’m a real person and not an evil doppelganger or a figment of your fevered paranoia. 2603:9001:953F:178:B824:2ECE:2DE1:DC7 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I were doubling down, I would not have reopened this AfD. This is the opposite of that. In 16 years as an admin, this is the first time I have ever been persuaded to reopen an AfD, and it is because I read the report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Captbloodrock. Incidentally, who are you, unsigned user? Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was in such a hurry to point out how you’re wrong about me that I posted from my phone, which wasn’t logged in. But I’m here now. Hello! It’s me, the person you think is Captbloodrock. I am, in fact, not. Nor am I whoever IOProfessor is, either. There are a number of other people I am also not, but you haven’t accused me of being any of those, so I’ll leave that be. Anatomyoffear (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I hesitate to respond and take this down some rabbit hole of a tangent, I will point out that I only mentioned you to note that despite the inclusion of your name in the sock investigation that I linked, you were not found to be a sockpuppet and therefore I did not strike through your comments. Now that you have drawn attention, though, I am curious: What drew you to the Chip Merlin AfD after six months away from Wikipedia? Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like lawyer stuff. I've noted things on other lawyer pages as well. Ironically, I discovered this guy through his sailing, not his lawyer stuff, but how's that for a small world? Anatomyoffear (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. the law firm which Merlin founded. This is possibly WP:NOTEWORTHY given the claim that it is "the second-largest firm in the United States in the field of representing insurance claims for natural disaster victims" -- but not overwhelmingly so (second largest in a single [large] country in a subdomain of a specific domain), and would require WP:NCORP to be clearly met... which it certainly doesn't on current sourcing.
  2. the S/V Merlin which Merlin purchased and which has a long prior history. The yacht is almost certainly notable, but its article is in need of proper referencing and copyediting for WP:TONE and editing and monitoring for WP:COATRACK).
  3. Merlin himself, whose level of notability/noteworthiness can reasonably be tied to his law firm, but not to purchasing/owning/operating the yacht (WP:NOTINHERITED)
... which gets us onto sources. Self-published sources don't count as WP:SIGCOV, and nor do sources which are not WP:INDEPENDENT and nor do WP:PASSINGMENTIONS in stories focussed primarily on another topic - this includes Oaktree b's Tampa Bay Times story & the passing coverage in the ABA journal, and Let'srun's highlighting of the Sail Magazine and Tampa Bay Times citations. Nor are the sources I've looked at any more reassuring.
I'm thus landing on redirection of Chip Merlin to S/V Merlin, with Chip Merlin as a lawyer appearing there as something concise along the lines of "Chip Merlin, a Florida personal injury attorney whose firm Merlin Law Group is (as of 2024) the second-largest in the United States in the field of representing insurance claims for natural disaster victims", and the contents of this article regarding the yacht selectively merged to S/V Merlin -- which could improve that article. If, at some point, Merlin Law Group manages to pass the WP:NCORP bar and has a compliant article written (noting WP:PAID and WP:COI and WP:LUC), then Merlin could instead be redirected there. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 00:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that given the S/V Merlin is a large yacht whose Merlin Racing Team is captained by Chip Merlin, individual notability on WP:NATHLETE grounds doesn't really apply here, but WP:NTEAM could -- but WP:NOPAGE would suggest that even if notability for the team itself could be established that S/V Merlin is the right place to cover them. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is fine, I'm not worried. It can be expanded later if the individual gains notability Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Liz:, I think a redirect would be a good WP:ATD but there is already more than sufficient information on that page about him. Would likely need to cut down quite a bit of that page due to referencing issues. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Tonga national rugby union players. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enele Taufa[edit]

Enele Taufa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Citations are profiles. Does not meet requirements of WP:NSPORT. Not other news can be found about them. Shinadamina (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided: As a world cup player there should be more written about him, but if nothing can be found then delete due to lack of references. Mn1548 (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Few caps and a World Cup for a reasonable nation. Few bits found in a simple search but it is highly likely that more exists in offline sourcing given the time of his career. At worst can be redirected to List of Tonga national rugby union players. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please share 2 or 3 reliable sources that have in-depth coverage on the person. We cannot assume reliable sources from the past can be found. We need to find them. Appearances in World Cup are not sufficient, unless there is such a WP policy which I am not aware of. If so, please link to the said policy. Shinadamina (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have found no sources with significant coverage. Doesn't meet NSPORT or GNG. Toadspike [Talk] 16:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails NSPORTS criteria, with not much achievements/heavy participation (sources). ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 02:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Georgia national rugby union players. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Elizbarashvili[edit]

Giorgi Elizbarashvili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shinadamina (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union, France, Georgia (country), and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quite a few caps and appeared at a World Cup for a reasonable rugby nation, and a career in France. Few bits found in a simple search. It is highly likely that more sourcing exists offline or in difficult to access non-English language sourcing. At worst can be redirected to List of Georgia national rugby union players. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please share 2 or 3 reliable sources that have in-depth coverage on the person. We cannot assume reliable sources from the past can be found. We need to find them. Appearances in World Cup are not sufficient, unless there is such a WP policy which I am not aware of. If so, please link to the said policy. Shinadamina (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shinadamina: Prior to February 2022, appearing in a top-level league or international game was enough to guarantee notability for individual players. An RfC on the guideline that month removed all such notability criteria from NSPORT, but people still invoke those obsoleted criteria because they haven't looked at the guideline as of late. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Georgia national rugby union players as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otar Eloshvili[edit]

Otar Eloshvili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sports. Shinadamina (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union, France, Georgia (country), and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2 World Cups for a reasonable rugby nation, and a career in France. Few bits found in a simple search such as this. It is highly likely that more sourcing exists offline or in difficult to access non-English language sourcing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The link you provided is mostly an interview, which is considered unreliable and not a proper citation for notability, betides one link hardly makes someone notable. Please share 2 or 3 reliable sources that have in-depth coverage on the person. We cannot assume reliable sources from the past can be found. We need to find them. Appearances in World Cup are not sufficient, unless there is such a WP policy which I am not aware of. If so, please link to the said policy. Shinadamina (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Should be notable with the World Cup appearances, but there aren't enough of them beyond simple confirmation [2] of him playing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also tried a Gnews search with .fr websites, you can only find photos or him being mentioned in articles about other things, I don't see enough to build even a basic article about him. Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obinna Sunday Ejianya[edit]

Obinna Sunday Ejianya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note that this same article existed at the title Godswill Obinna Ejianya, which was moved back to draftspace by the creator within minutes of my initiating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godswill Obinna Ejianya and then blanked, but was created at this new title almost simultaneously with all of that. So it isn't eligible for immediate speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, but the actual issues here haven't changed at all: it's still a semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a businessperson, still not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for businesspeople.
As always, businesspeople are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but of the six footnotes here, two of them (actually one, reduplicated as two distinct footnotes for no obvious reason) are just "covering" him in the context of turning 50, which is not a notability claim in and of itself, and the other four are all covering him in the context of receiving a local "man of the year" award that isn't highly prominent enough to be a notability-making award. And even more interestingly, those four sources are all virtually identical in wording despite seemingly coming from four different media outlets, meaning that it's really either a wire service article or a self-published press release from the subject. But four media outlets reprinting the same article adds up to one GNG point, not four — we're counting the number of distinct articles, not the number of newspapers that reprint the same article — which means he hasn't actually been shown to pass GNG.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier published article; Godswill Obinna Ejianya was deleted because there seemed to be a name disparity issue. All cited media outlets has articles on the persona which I believe makes it notable. I have no idea why four different media outlets will publish same word to word articles about a person. Sayvhior (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG, can't find a reason why this passes the minimum WP:BASIC. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG since I gave no weight to the sources which rather based on his works. An entrepreneur is usually not notable except has done something significant in a field of business. Apart from that's there are few sources which didn't count to WP:SIGCOV. I am weighing delete for now. Or if there is need for WP:ATD, redirect to List of Nigerian entrepreneurs. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 03:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Greetings, asides being an entrepreneur and according to one of the sources cited and I quote, “ Obinna Sunday Ejianya was nominated for the award for the kind of innovation he brought to bear on investigative journalism and his amazing reportage in the year 2022, especially in some Issues that concern Anambra State” if this isn’t a significant one, please guide on WP:ATD redirect to List of Nigerian entrepreneurs Thanks. Sayvhior (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Don't redirect, since the subject isn't mentioned at List of Nigerian entrepreneurs (and shouldn't be, for that matter). jlwoodwa (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Al-Rifaey[edit]

Adnan Al-Rifaey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of an Islamic scholar who does not appear to be notable either as an author or for anything else really. Mccapra (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete It's so hard to assess articles where no sources in the native language of the project are going to exist. Such articles are not a requirement for inclusion here should they be. However the (auto-translated) sources cited here seem to be a forum post, the top level of a website, and two very press release-y articles seemingly provided by the person himself or his publicist. This does not seem sufficient for a properly written and sourced encyclopedia article. --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom lacks in depth coverage from reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Cesar Bota[edit]

Victor Cesar Bota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, no usable citations included in the article; an internet search turned up database entries for "THE GRACIES AND THE BIRTH OF VALE TUDO", but no coverage that could serve towards writing an article about that film or Bota. Page also apparently has a history of WP:UPE. signed, Rosguill talk 17:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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! 22:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not provide sufficient independent, reliable sources to verify his notability, with much of the information coming from self-published or primary sources--Assirian cat (talk) 07:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:Absolutely fails GNG, among several other issues. Which is probably why it looks like an SPA attempted to make it look legitimate - by adding a bunch of bad references like blogs and other unreliable sources, failed verifications, trivial mentions, or just "Roku.com". Spagooder (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seems to be NPOV/COI issues. Not much reliable sources found. Fails GNG. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 02:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't know where to categorise this article but all I can say is that WP:LOTSOFSOURCES doesn't make an article notable. This article doesn't meet verifiable sources which also meets our guideline for WP:RS. However there are certain reason why this article may still be notable maybe in the future but not now. As for WP:ANYBIO, and WP:BASIC, I can't confirm that because almost if not all the sources are unreliable. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds are For Cocktails[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Diamonds are For Cocktails (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Deleted at AfD in 2022, but recreated recently. However, the sources are no better – they are all primary interviews with the author or PR websites (or both) and don't pass RS. The only claim of notability is a supposed endorsement from a Fox News reporter, but I can't find any direct proof of this, only reports of it by Zarah herself or in other non-RS sources. Richard3120 (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No hits at Kirkus, Booklist, or PW; I can't find even one review for NBOOK. The Fox News quote appears to be a back cover endorsement type of thing rather than a published review, and thus can't contribute to NBOOK (I also couln't find an actual source for it). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD before, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Only links to buy the book are what I find, no sort of reviews. This is likely PROMO. Being featured on a billboard isn't notable, neither is much of anything else listed here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Mumford[edit]

Toni Mumford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources beyond the ones here, which are not independent. Unfortunately, this means she fails WP:GNG and a lack of google scholar cites means she doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC either. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Undisclosed COI by the creator? Looks like they work together. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Shivaji University as an AtD. Given limited participation after one relist, this is in effect a 'soft' redirect. Daniel (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Raosaheb Ramrao Patil Mahavidyalaya[edit]

Shri Raosaheb Ramrao Patil Mahavidyalaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability. College affiliated with a university. I'm normally pretty lenient regarding GNG sourcing for schools but this one has zero independent sources much less GNG sources. And I couldn't find any. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silviu Florea[edit]

Silviu Florea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

#2 is a primary source, but the third article seems to have some pretty good coverage... JTtheOG (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the references added above, which establish notability. Frank Anchor 03:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative web[edit]

Cooperative web (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found technical papers using the term "cooperative web" in a few different ways (e.g. as an extension to the semantic web), but this article refers to one or more attempts to create a collaborative real-time editor, particularly IBM's Blue Spruce project and its obscure successor OpenCoWeb. It might be possible to create an article about Blue Spruce, but this article's title and content are not appropriate for such an article. There's also the older, wiki-inspired collaborative service CoWeb, which stands for "Collaborative website", but this service is unrelated to IBM's project. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Any editor who wishes a draft version may contact me or another administrator. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alley of the Dolls (band)[edit]

Alley of the Dolls (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Newly created article, PROD declined. Sourcing does not establish WP:GNG being met. WP:BEFORE brings up only a couple of brief reviews of their EP. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to add additional citations to the EP as many exist MusicForeverYours (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added citations to additional reviews, more are available but not always in English as the band has a lot of support in none English speaking countries so reviews are not in English as is requested by Wikipedia. MusicForeverYours (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Source 18 is a RS for the album review; the rest used now in the article is primary or non-RS. I can only find the Spill Magazine review, so without any other sources, the band is not at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: If more citations for this article exist, they should absolutely be added. it's free realist 9 16:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two additional reviews and citations added to establish bands obvious notability. More available but dont want the article to just be a list of magazine reviews. Happy to add more if this view isnt shared. MusicForeverYours (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in Algeria[edit]

List of battles in Algeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to List of battles in Belgium (deleted recently). NLeeuw (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Where are all of our AFD regulars? We need more AFD discussion participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Marcocapelle and HouseBlaster: due to their involvement in related CFD discussions about "Battles in X". Liz requested more participation. NLeeuw (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was moot‎. While we normally suggest avoid making such changes during an AfD, the pages have been merged and redirected and there is clearly no inclination here to do anything else. I am closing this discussion because it is moot due to editorial actions in the interim, anyone should feel free to start another discussion of any type. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UL 365[edit]

UL 365 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sources in article are primary, nothing found that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth from an independent source that meets WP:GNG. I am also nominating the following related pages:

UL 2610 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
UL 294 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Standards_for_Alarm_Systems,_Installation,_and_Monitoring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

 // Timothy :: talk  22:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Never used talk pages before, is this how we "talk".
I need to google many of the terms in your talk comments?
  • Reply No need for Google, I have wikilinked the above terms and you might find Wikipedia:Glossary helpful for any other terms you come across.  // Timothy :: talk  23:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will be back in about 20 hours, and will reply then.
Some things may be a bit circular at the moment, please bear with me. I am adding the content as I can at work, estimating a week.
Background, I am a security architect, and for work I needed the information I am authoring. I am not affiliated with UL.
I have discovered that the information I and my colleagues needed, is (mostly) not found on the internet. It is many, many closed areas. I feel this information should be in Wikipedia as #3 of the Wikipedia:Five_pillars states. I am privileged to have access to many of the usges of these standards, and the standards themselves. Theses standards are an unseen impact on security, but very large impact they do have. See businesswire.com's "Global Alarm Monitoring Market Report 2021 Market to Reach 57.7 Billion by 2026"[3] for some ideas as to the scope.
Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline I see "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article."
Maybe the items I am putting together should go in one page. But "Wikipedia has no firm rules" Jpyeron (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, regarding the secondary sources - there are many non public secondary sources. At the same time a standard is measured not by its citations, but by its usage.
Look at many devices, see the stickers? Here you can see all the companies saying they are compliant with UL 2610: [4]https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22UL+2610%22#ip=1 Jpyeron (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to continue spending my time improving the content, but I would like to get some community consensus on that the articles are kept or merged. I am thinking they should be merged in to one page covering the security standards.
Based on my reading of WP:GNG it is not applicable (passes), and WP:SIRS is uniquely narrow for this case. Again, 5th pillar. Can someone cite specifics?
Will follow up in a day. Jpyeron (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the AFD is now classified as "could not be categorised due to insufficient information in the article". I want to continue putting in the information, but: I do not have responses to my above clarifications, and I am not going to put significant investment if it is just going to be deleted.
If the insufficient information is the reason, isn't incubation the proper remedy? Jpyeron (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will merge the articles tomorrow, the new article will have this AFD at the top and the other pages will redirect to it. I think this addresses the "You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AfD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community."
The new merged article Standards for Alarm Systems, Installation, and Monitoring will also eventually have other non-UL items, such as ISO/IEC 22237-6:2024. I will follow up tomorrow. Jpyeron (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Friday got away from me, doing the merge now. creating Standards for Alarm Systems, Installation, and Monitoring and then setting the redirects. Jpyeron (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you know, but you left the article deletion tag in the new article. Sadustu Tau (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did put it there on purpose, because "removal is not allowed" until consensus. The new article is a merger of the old 3. Jpyeron (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed the merger and redirects - I will follow up Monday Jpyeron (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participants here besides the content creator and the nominator. It looks like the nominator didn't set up any deletion sorting, can a helpful editor like Wcquidditch take care of that for this discussion? Many thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Engineering, Technology, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominated articles were merged and changed into a redirects two days ago. It's discussed in the above "thread" but that's just Jpeyron making a series of comments and nobody objecting. I don't think this is how things are supposed to be done even as part of a good faith effort to resolve the deletion rationale.
    I think the appropriate thing is for @Jpyeron to revert the changes and then propose a merge with a rationale given. The merge article can be moved to draftspace. Note that there are rules about WP:Copying within Wikipedia that may also be at play. Oblivy (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to do so, it is hard to do the right thing in a vacuum.
    Regarding the merge, I created the pages separate, but after reading up on the AfD and associated items the merger process seemed to be the best logical organization.
    But I am a bit confused on the "copying" thing. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed .
    Note, this week is going to very busy for me, had dedicated time last week for putting the content in. More time after 3-Jun. Jpyeron (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, the preference is for leaving pages for deletion in place so they can be assessed by participating editors. On the other hand (and I do this a lot), editors are encouraged to work on improving articles to prevent deletion. It was just very confusing to click through to the article and see that it had been changed to a redirect.
    I guess copying rule doesn't apply. I hadn't looked through the history to see that you were the only editor of those pages.
    I'm happy to vote merge -- it does seem to be a good outcome, and if one of the sub-subjects turns out to be notable someone can create a WP:FORK over your redirect page. In which case the copying rule would apply! Oblivy (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer merge as well.
    re: "It was just very confusing to click through to the article and see that it had been changed to a redirect." it is why I added the AFD to the top of the new.
    Should I revert? It is much easier to edit in the new doc, and continue to add to it. I am going to hold off on the busy work reversion until there is a clear request/preference to revert. Jpyeron (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge General members of the public rely on alarm system standards to assess the quality, safety, and effectiveness of systems they procure, often looking for certification marks to ensure trust in these products. This article provides an overview of these standards to satisfy the curiosity of those who wish to understand the gist without delving into technical details. For industry stakeholders, it highlights how adherence to these standards facilitates compliance and maintains a competitive edge, serving as a gateway for further detailed exploration of specific standards and best practices. Jpyeron (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please clarify for me, what is the Merge target article here? It can't be one that is also nominated for AFD deletion. Are all articles to be Merged to the same target article? Please be very specific on what outcome you want and do not usurp the discussion and Merge and Redirect before this discussion is closed. Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, this was discussed above. I am new to this process and trying to do the most meaningful work. Do you want me to revert the redirects at this time? Do you want me to remove the AFD from the new target article? Jpyeron (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz as far as I can see, @Jpyeron created a set of pages for these UL specifications, then when @TimothyBlue nominated them for deletion they in good faith decided to merge them into a single larger article at [Standards for Alarm Systems, Installation, and Monitoring]]. When it was relisted, I tried to untangle this and got frustrated by the redirects, which led to my comment above. A comment which could have been more welcoming of the efforts as I can't see why the combined article wouldn't be a better outcome assuming it's properly sourced.
    @Jpyeron I can't speak for Liz, but I think the AfD notice should be removed. You pasted it in when you created the merge article. I'm going to be bold and remove it as it doesn't belong to that article. Oblivy (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. This is a tricky one, but given the convincing challenges to every option that isn't "delete", I see a weak consensus for that. There is no substantive challenge either to the applicability of the MOS sectioned below, or for the sourcing issues. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in Croatia[edit]

List of battles in Croatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to List of battles in Belgium (deleted recently). NLeeuw (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Croatia. NLeeuw (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes WP:NLIST, the lack of sourcing is not an issue considering it's a verifiable list article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of battles by geographic location. Unsourced page. ToadetteEdit! 08:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That article is also almost completely WP:UNSOURCED, so that won't solve the issues. I may nominate that list as well, sooner or later, but I decided to begin with the spin-offs first. NLeeuw (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Battles involving Croatia and its five sub-categories cover this. A list article is more useful than categories, since columns can be made, listing the year and additional information to be easier to sort. Dream Focus 08:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's different: battles involving Croatia ≠ battles in Croatia. We do not categorise battles by location per WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN.
    If we want a list of battles involving Croatia, analogous to Category:Battles involving Croatia and analogous to List of wars involving Croatia, we can. But then this whole article needs to be Renamed, Rescoped, rigorously Purged of inapplicable battles, and Re-populated with applicable battles which actually involved the Republic of Croatia (and any commonly recognised historical predecessors), including battles outside of Croatian territory involving the Croatian military.
    That is so much fuss - because it's an entirely different scope - that we better WP:TNT this and start over, based on the actual contents of Category:Battles involving Croatia (and recycling some sources from its articles), and not the WP:UNSOURCED current contents of this article. NLeeuw (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I struct out my vote. I wasn't aware of the rule against grouping things by location. Dream Focus 13:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also only found it a few days ago, to be honest. I've been working on this category tree for some time, currently proposing to merge, rename or delete a couple of them at WP:CFD, should you be interested (see 4 May 2024). NLeeuw (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was my accept at AfC. I dismissed the previous challenge of 'unsourced' that led to it being draftified, as that didn't apply to a list, however I was unaware of WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN so in hindsight, I would not have accepted it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware of it either until recently. At Talk:List of battles by geographic location#Splitting Proposal, I've just outlined some CfD and AfD jurisprudence on accepting or deleting categories or lists/articles on battles by location. Long story short: CfD categorically (pun intended) rejects them, AfD often accepts them, but for different reasons and under certain conditions. The two project spaces are thus at odds. NLeeuw (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus here yet. I'll just mention that similar articles nominated at AFD involving different countries have closed as "Delete".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Marcocapelle and HouseBlaster: due to their involvement in related CFD discussions about "Battles in X". Liz requested more participation. NLeeuw (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Until the article is properly sourced. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm swayed by the reasoning at WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN, and note that given the history of Croatia in particular, the conundrum of "what iteration of the country does this list refer to" identified by MILMOS is particularly relevant and thorny. signed, Rosguill talk 17:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 21:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Graves Greene Philatelic Research Foundation[edit]

Vincent Graves Greene Philatelic Research Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is completely unsourced and subject does not seem to be notable. Quick Google News skim shows only two vague news articles about this Foundation [5] [6]. GoldRomean (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please assess recent changes to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"subject does not seem to be notable...." Except to the worldwide community of those who collect, study, and research postal history and postage stamps. 2601:282:1C00:8A10:9146:9250:A151:B8D9 (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regretably that is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Notability has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia and that is the criteria that must be met. Popularity with philatelists is of interest, but does not contribute to notability unless this particular subject is discussed in multiple independent and reliable sources.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Canadian auction house Sparks calls Greene "the pre-eminent expert committee for the stamps of Canada and British North America." That's probably not a reliable source, but it ought to be a hint that there's something there. Indeed, there's coverage in philatelic periodicals. Appropriately for a Canada-centric topic, Canada Stamp News has spent a lot of time talking about Greene: [7][8][9][10][11] and so forth. I suspect a great deal of discussion in Linn's and Gibbon Stamp Monthly, but both of them have paywalled archives (and the former's archive is a sad "archive", going back to ~2008 for a publication that debuted in 1928!). Digitization rates for reference material in this field are terrible; a lot of the significant coverage here is going to be in print. Lubal (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I'm a bit concerned that the Canada Stamp News and Linn's sources identified by Lubal and Eastmain here or in the article lack bylines and that the publications don't appear to publish mastheads, but I'm swayed by Lubal's arguments to the effect of WP:NEXIST. Searching on Google Books, there appear to be many matches in philately publications (both academic and otherwise), although I wasn't able to access any that clearly have significant coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 17:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ based on new sources found during AFD. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bivesh Gurung[edit]

Bivesh Gurung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer that does not appear to have played a full professional game. Sources are mostly local papers and match reports. Black Kite (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Mostly the references were about match reports which doesn't indicate notability. But with this reference, I would prefer to redirect to Maidstone.Fade258 (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Nowhere useful to redirect to, the 'current club' will be out of date in due course. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @GiantSnowman:, Till now I have found only one reliable and independent sources to the subject which I already mentioned in my above comment. On the basis of that reference I would like to go for redirect. Best Regards ! Fade258 (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per @User:GiantSnowman. As he is a professional player in England, if more sources are located, I will change the vote. The problem seems to be about WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, @Svartner:, @Fade258:, I found [12] ("Gurung’s parents settled in Kent after his father’s time as Gurkha in the British army... Gurung has international ambitions and has been in contact with the Nepali football authorities but is yet to commit... has A-levels in maths and economics", [13] ("Bivesh is the youngest child of Bhupal Gurung and Sanu Gurung who are from the Khotang Hills of Eastern Nepal. Bivesh, the youngest son of his parents who have been doing business for a long time in the UK, grew up there. While growing up there, studying at Maidstone School, Bivesh joined age group club of the same school and started playing football... While in Trysil, he also scored 4 important goals in the league for the team in 13 matches as a central midfielder... gave a trial at the prestigious English Premiership club Chelsea. In the middle of March 2021, he was in Chelsea's U-23 setup against Brentford B. In that match, Chelsea lost 2-1... relegated to the English 6th division National League South... It can definitely cause problems to represent the Nepali national football team. He will have to give up that visa to get Nepalese citizenship which is not a good move for him. "), [14] ("Bivesh Gurung has taken to a new defensive role at Maidstone United.

Gurung played centre-back for the first time in senior football... local lad Gurung has been a fixture in Elokobi’s side this season.... it’s turning into a breakthrough campaign for the former Maidstone Grammar School pupil") , [15], ("Gurung is a product of the club’s youth set-up where he was spotted and offered a scholarship by Crystal Palace in 2017. He has since headed back to Maidstone via spells playing in Scandinavia and nailed down a regular spot despite the club’s arduous end to last season in the National League. His fitting finish set social media alight but while he has enjoyed being the centre of attention, Gurung is quick to share the plaudits.") among many more sources. Young player witn ongoing career and clearly siginficnt figure in Nepali football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Das osmnezz:, Thank you for the references but only 1st and 3rd references were reliable and independent to the subject i.e The Guardian and Kentonline respectively. Sajha Khel isn't a reliable source. Fade258 (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sajha Khel is reliable, its a Nepali football news webiste and the author has worked as a sports journalist. The Non League Football Paper is also independent. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PayTabs[edit]

AfDs for this article:
PayTabs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Every source is a press release of crummy business award except for one - an interview with the founder published in Entrepreneur India. Given WP:NEWSORGINDIA and the general surface level, uncritical tone of the article I'm skeptical this is quality coverage. BrigadierG (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your input, I have asked the brand to place proper link. This will be done in 1-2 days. 180.151.24.178 (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If "the brand" want to contribute anything, they should limit themselves to suggesting edits on the article Talk page, with full disclosure. AllyD (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obvious WP:UPE but evaluating on a notability level, it fails WP:NCORP. Yes, NEWSORGINDIA applies to some of the referencing but even outside of that the references are weak. For instance, this reference in the Arab News seems good on its face until you see it is basically WP:CHURNALISM from this press release. Nothing I can find would meet WP:NCORP. I am also anticipating IPs and SPAs coming with keep votes. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the links are OK now, if there is any specific media mention that needs to be deleted or replaced, please let us know. We will get it done Prince-rkt (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > We
    Are you a paid editor? If so, why have you not disclosed your affiliation under WP:COI? BrigadierG (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No I am not a paid editor, I am an employee of PayTabs and have created the page with limited expertise. Therefore you can let me know the limitations or problem areas. 180.151.243.205 (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As they are your employer, this is still a conflict of interest, even though it was done in good faith. You might like to build your expertise on Wikipedia by editing articles that are not directly related to your work, but on things that interest you. In the case of this page, you would be well advised to contribute through the talk page rather than editing the article directly. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. G4 and enforce AFC or some other process. Probably could have just drafified tbh, the title is already salted. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ per WP:TOOSOON and Draftify to Draft:Arya Igami Tarhani — CactusWriter (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arya Igami Tarhani[edit]

Arya Igami Tarhani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This footballer does not appear to have played a professional senior game, only junior ones. Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I missed that. However a player that has played one professional game doesn't seem at all notable to me, coverage seems routine. Black Kite (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but that game was a couple weeks ago and his new professional career just started so an odd time to delete when he's likely to get coverage over the upcoming season. I agree with draftify for now. DCsansei (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Played two games and counting, notable as a Japanese-Iraqi haafu professional footballer. かぴさん Kapisan (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Rafael van der Vaart#Personal life. Any editor who wishes to have a restored version placed in Draft space may contact me or another administrator. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Damián van der Vaart[edit]

Damián van der Vaart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 17-year-old footballer doesn't appear to have even played a full professional game for any club. It seems that most of the news stories about him are due to him being the son of Rafael van der Vaart. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rafael van der Vaart#Personal life, where he is already mentioned extensively, per ATD and CHEAP. This is a youth player in all his clubs. gidonb (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We should probably shift to write articles about footballers that have accomplished something within the sport, so as to avoid newspaper articles based on pure speculation. The latter sources come naturally with young players, especially children of former players. Geschichte (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per gidonb. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft 17 year-old footballer who has yet to start his career. Best served in draft space, if he does play, then he plays and has his own coverage. Redirecting would just hide him, draft is a better of the choice. Also if people goto the article, they can then see there is an article to work on in draft space. Can't be worked on if it's a redirect! :/ Govvy (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Due to famous father, likely to be searched and then re-created when a redlink comes up. A redirect removes that risk to some degree. GiantSnowman 19:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify – And the alternative to redirect is also plausible. Svartner (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete‎. I'm going to include the draft in the deletion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Tinley[edit]

Daniel Tinley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable voice actor. No sufficient coverage from reliable sources to warrant a standalone article. Fails WP:NACTOR. CycloneYoris talk! 20:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, for the same reason. I actually nominated it for speedy deletion like 20 seconds before you nominated it for deletion, so I think you overwrote my nomination since we were editing at the same time.
Gottagotospace (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gottagotospace: Oops, sorry! You can go ahead and restore the CSD tag if you wish to do so. CycloneYoris talk! 21:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just did that! I wasn't sure if I was supposed to delete the normal nomination for deletion stuff though. So now there's two banners: one about speedy deletion and one about normal deletion. Gottagotospace (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we should leave the tag there. If an admin decides to speedy delete the article, then they will likely close this AfD as well. CycloneYoris talk! 21:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OIM20 (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to take up that much space, and this guy is pretty notable. Why can't he have a small Wikipedia page considering his fanbase and following? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryfunkypants (talk • contribs) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

91 subscribers on youtube. Why is it so much trouble just to keep this one small page?

There is an article for an Estonian politician with literally one sentence on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avo_%C3%9Cprus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryfunkypants (talk • contribs) 20:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social media site. If anyone with a small social media following was able to have an article about them on Wikipedia, then Wikipedia would become extremely bloated. If Daniel becomes a notable actor and/or streamer in the future, then great - he can get an article then! But as of now, he's at the point in his career where he does not meet notability criteria. Gottagotospace (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool, but you didn't respond to my initial point. Is it not already bloated with 1 sentence articles about totally random people? This guy has a following. Why is it so necessary to delete this page? What specifically bothers you about this page that you want to delete it within 1 hour of when it was created?
Veryfunkypants (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Policing wikipedia must be a cool occupation, but you're also discouraging people from making their contributions, and what they consider to be notable to themselves and others.
Veryfunkypants (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make the rules, I'm just informing you of them. Please read Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. I bet plenty of editors (including myself) would be happy to have an article about Daniel on Wikipedia once his career reaches a point where he meets those notability guidelines. Gottagotospace (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but he can just have this smaller, "bare-bones" sort of article, so his community knows. He has a pretty sizable fanbase, including me so that's why I feel this is good for him to have. He's a really nice guys and deserves a bit of recognition for his work. Thanks for the support
Veryfunkypants (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: an attempt was made to speedily dele with this discussion open. —Railroadr20 (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Struck sock. Hatman31 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks so much for noticing. Kind of suspicious indeed
    Veryfunkypants (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Railroadr20, @Veryfunkypants - Not really. If you read the page history, you'd see that there were multiple editors putting it up for deletion at the same time. This was even talked about in this discussion thread (top) at 21:07 and 21:11. Nothing sus about it. OIM20 (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Absolutely no evidence of coverage by a reliable secondary source. signed, Willondon (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: After this discussion got started, the apparent subject of the article requested deletion of the article about him, asserting that the page was created with malicious intent. That does make sense, seeing as the original creator mentioned multiple "controversies" related to the subject without proper sources to back them up. I went to Daniel's talk page and let him know he can chime in the AfD section if he wants, but I don't know if he has seen the message. Gottagotospace (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Draft too, then? OIM20 (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Different IP also claiming to Daniel requested deletion of the draft too (see here). Could be a dynamic IP. Could also not be Daniel at all. Either way, I don't think it matters much since subject does not meet notability guidelines at this time. We really don't need an article about him on Wikipedia at this time, not even as a draft. (Maybe in the future if/when his career gets to the point where he *does* meet notability guidelines, but not at this time.) Gottagotospace (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. Commonly known as WP:Otherstuff. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, per nom. Seems like SPI is warranted (if not already reported).--Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 14:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BK Skottfint[edit]

BK Skottfint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF and several others, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Giffarna[edit]

FC Giffarna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF and several others, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

FK Kozara (Sweden)[edit]

FK Kozara (Sweden) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF and several others, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Control Tower Team: Creating and Maintaining Confluence Pages[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Control Tower Team: Creating and Maintaining Confluence Pages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOT as a how-to guide, cannot be made into an encyclopedic article in any meaningful way that shouldn't be at Confluence (software). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, for the reasons given above. Also, it seems to me that the article is essentially promotional. JBW (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UM.SiteMaker[edit]

UM.SiteMaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage. Non-notable web software. SL93 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. After two relists, both the balance of arguments and the !vote count favor deletion, with keep !voters declining to address arguments analyzing the timing and depth of the published sources covering the subject. signed, Rosguill talk 17:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arora Akanksha[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Arora Akanksha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL as a former candidate who got exactly 0 votes. Since her 2021 run, she did absolutely nothing that is notable, so I'm renominating this article for deletion. All the sources fit squarely in WP:BLP1E territory. Mottezen (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Mottezen (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not passing WP:NPOL does not mean that she cannot be notable through any other criteria. The previous AfD from 2021 was kept on WP:GNG grounds; can you clarify why you think that result was incorrect? Curbon7 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the previous nomination, the 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection was not yet completed. While, most !keep voters in the previous AfD did not even acknowledge the BLP1E issue, those that did exaggerated her importance in the election.
    Example for exaggerated importance: even if the coverage relates to one event (where both the event & the role of the subject is significant); such articles are usually kept. and Invoking WP:BLP1E here isn't right because she pretty clearly has a significant role in the selection. Remember, she got no votes and no country endorsements, so her role in the event was insignificant. Even the UN ambassador for her own country didn't reply to her request for a meeting to discuss her candidacy.
    Of note: about a year after the end of her campaign, her campaign website https://unow.org/ went down, and her last campaign post on facebook was before the 2021 selection. Arora moved on to become a lecturer. Mottezen (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as in the first AfD, I think the question of notability centers on WP:BLP1E, since WP:GNG is clearly met. BLP1E states that we should not have an article if all 3 conditions are met. Here, Criteria #1 and #2 are clearly met (only covered in context of one event, otherwise low-profile). So is Criteria #3 met? Well, the UN Secretary-General selection is clearly significant, so that's ok. Was Arora's role "not substantial" or "not well-documented"? As GNG is met, we can cross off "not well-documented." On "not substantial", we come to a matter of opinion. Since she received no backing or actual votes, I can see why those in favor of deletion would argue her role was insubstantial. On the other hand, this candidacy was outside the norms of the UN system and attracted reliable media coverage for that reason. I would argue it was substantial enough to merit her inclusion as a standalone page. However, a merge to 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection would also be a reasonable outcome. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection. Not convinced there's enough here for WP:GNG.-KH-1 (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a BLP1E similar to an article about a losing candidate - if there's anything to cover, it can be done on the election page. SportingFlyer T·C 04:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Ganesha811 points out, with the amount of coverage received this is not a case of Arora being "not well-documented". I see WP:GNG met in this case, and losses can be notable if covered in reliable secondary sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To those who argue her run for Secretary-general is "well-documented"... it's just not, especially in the crucial stages of her campaign. Let me illustrate: these are the dates the 9 secondary sources in the article were published:

  • AFP (February 19, 2021)
  • Arab News (April 4, 2021)
  • NYT (February 26, 2021)
  • Hindustan Times (February 27, 2021)
  • Business Today (March 2, 2021)
  • The Print (February 13, 2021)
  • CBC (April 4, 2021)
  • Forbes (May 7, 2021)
  • New Yorker (June 14, 2021)

Note that there is only one source published in June 2021, the month the vote took place, and thus the month that attention to the UNSG selection was most warranted. Sadly, the most crucial period of her campaign is barely documented. The June New Yorker source is also one of the lesser quality sources because it merely recounts a day the author spent with her; it's storytelling rather than journalistic work. Mottezen (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Again, our standard is to delete or merge articles on unsuccessful candidates for political office. This was kept at the first AfD likely erroneously because those arguing for keep either met GNG was met (which is irrelevant for candidates, who always meet GNG - political candidates are exceptions to GNG under NOT) and that her run was significant for purposes of BLP1E (she ended up not even being eligible to run.) She's also not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 06:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There are widely diverging opinions/arguments in this discussion on whether or not this subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Editors who are proposing a Merge/Redirect outcome must provide a link to the target article they are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as BLP1E. Apart from some glowing PR pieces, her self-declared candidacy for UN Secretary-General was irrelevant to that event. (She says her campaign was "non-traditional" to try to explain away that she got no nominations and no votes.) And there is no substantial coverage about her outside of that. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP1E, largely per SportingFlyer's additional comment at 06:56 8 May in response to Mottezen (immediately above). SF's comment addresses the prior AfD result in context of when it was resolved, and is correct in their assessment of our current standards regarding unsuccessful candidates for political office as I have seen at DRV over the years. Agree not notable and this falls in the 1E category. Daniel (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Per WP:TOOSOON. Any editor who wishes to restore this article in Draft space may contact me or another administrator. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwean cricket team in Ireland in 2024[edit]

Zimbabwean cricket team in Ireland in 2024 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, sources in article are passing mentions in routine sports news, nothing meeting WP:SIRS.

Source eval:

Comments Source
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 1. "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 2. ^ "ICC confirm Ireland's fixture list for next four years". Belfast Telegraph. 18 August 2022. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 3. ^ "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi in September". CricTracker. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 4. ^ "T20 World Cup in focus as Ireland outline busy summer schedule". International Cricket Council. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 5. ^ "Fixtures released for 2024". Cricket Ireland. Retrieved 13 May 2024.

Draft has been disputed. It is very unlikely this match will generate WP:SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  04:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I am frankly baffled by the two "keep" recommendations below. Both from seasoned editors. But both of a type expressly discussed in WP:ATA. ("All test series have articles - and so this one should too" is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Nothing is inherently or automatically notable. Not least sports fixtures that haven't yet occurred. And "There may not be coverage now - but there definitely will be" is a WP:ONLYBECAUSEITHAPPENED argument. Where the community agrees that "Notability is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already". Not whether they could in the future....) Baffled..... Guliolopez (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm baffled by the noms statement: "It is very unlikely this match will generate WP:SIGCOV"; this perhaps illustrates they are not familiar with Test cricket, or the importance of the match, as it will certainly generate significant coverage. AA (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the nominator could have framed their own argument better (and perhaps said "it is very possible [SIGCOV won't be generated]"; Rather than the more definitive/predictive "it is very likely/unlikely [SIGCOV won't be generated]"). But the fact remains that AfD discussions should be based on the sources and evidences of notability that exist at the time of the discussion. Not those that might exist in the future. Or would have existed in the past had conditions been different. Personally I don't understand why, even if you fully believe that sources/evidences will arise in the future, you wouldn't see that as an argument to draftify/incubate. Until that actual SIGCOV actually exists... (Also, familiarity with test cricket [or expertise in any field] isn't a precondition to AfD discussions or a prerequisite to dispassionate evaluation of sources.) Guliolopez (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A series between two ICC full members who will play a Test match, the highest level of the international game. This match will receive coverage and WP:SIGCOV as it is the first Test match to be played in Northern Ireland (a historically notable moment) and only the second Test match played on the island of Ireland. AA (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Every Test cricket series, even a one-Test series like this, has an article. Sammyrice (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify It's likely that coverage will exist at the time of the test, but for now draftify as a case of WP:TOOSOON. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Clearly fails in WP:GNG, the event is not notable for a dedicated article. Svartner (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Agree with AA that it is likely this will receive sufficient coverage to meet SIGCOV. But that is in the future. For now it doesn't, and draft space is specifically for incubating such articles. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the series becomes notable after it occurs, the article can be recreated. Right now there is nothing useful to retain in draft form. JoelleJay (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Ally Ridgers[edit]

Ally Ridgers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable footballer who has been attached to clubs at a higher level, but has never appeared above the (part-time) Scottish fourth tier. No evidence of significant coverage - the two references are to an article about his brother, in which he gets a passing mention, and a match report of a Highland League game. I have been unable to find much else other than this BBC article [[16]] about him joining Inverness Caledonian Thistle as loan back-up; he was a substitute for them in the SPL, but made no appearances. Jellyman (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

SAHDUOO Saxophone[edit]

SAHDUOO Saxophone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of high commissioners of Australia to Brunei. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Lazarus Arnold[edit]

Luke Lazarus Arnold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG as the references are mostly poor quality passing mentions, and collectively these references don't constitute significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Uhooep (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of high commissioners of Australia to Brunei. WC gudang inspirasi (Read! Talk!) 11:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Liga 1 U-14[edit]

2022 Liga 1 U-14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Football tournament for children supported by a couple of primary sources. Utterly insignificant within the football world, fails WP:SIGCOV. Geschichte (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Susetyo, Gatot (2022-09-22). "Juara Elite Pro Academy U-14, Debut Indah Dewa United di BRI Liga 1 2022 / 2023". bola.com (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2024-05-25.
  2. ^ Wulandari, Syifa Ayu (2022-09-20). "PERSIB Terpaksa Terhenti Di Semifinal EPA U-14 Usai Lawan Persis Solo". Sragen Update (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2024-05-25.
  3. ^ Samodra, Adi Surya (2022-11-21). "Libur Hampir 2 Bulan, Persis Solo U-14 Kembali Berlatih, Coach Winaryo Puji Antusiasme Pemain". Tribun Solo (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2024-05-25.
  4. ^ Yerimon, Petrus Manus Da' (2022-09-23). "Bantai Persis Solo di Partai Final, Dewa United Sabet Gelar Juara EPA U-14 2022". Indosport. Archived from the original on 2022-09-23. Retrieved 2024-05-25.
  5. ^ "Barito Putera Siap Berlaga di EPA U-14". Klikkalsel (in Indonesian). 2022-09-06. Retrieved 2024-05-25.
  6. ^ Hamdi, Tarmizi (2022-09-07). "Elite Pro Academy U-14 PSSI: Persikabo 1973 Telan Kekalahan Perdana". JPNN Jakarta (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2024-05-25.
  7. ^ "EPA Liga-1 U-14 2022, Bhayangkara FC Raih Juara 3 Kalahkan Persib". detiknews.id (in Indonesian). 2022-09-23. Archived from the original on 2022-12-05. Retrieved 2024-05-25.
  8. ^ Prasetya, Mochamad Hary (2022-09-22). "Tumbangkan Persis Solo, Dewa United Juara Liga 1 EPA U-14 2022". Bolasport (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2024-05-25.
  9. ^ "PSSI Lengkapi Kompetisi Usia Muda, dengan Menggelar Elite Pro Academy U-14". PSSI (in Indonesian). 2022-09-04. Retrieved 2024-05-25.
  10. ^ Prabowo, Ronald Seger (2022-09-12). "Hasil EPA U-14: Persis Solo dan PSIS Semarang Kompak Petik Kemenangan, Persija Jakarta Tertahan". Suara Surakarta (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2024-05-25.
  11. ^ Laeis, Zuhdiar (2022-09-24). "Dias Angga ingatkan pemain Dewa United U-14 tak cepat berpuas diri". Antara News (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2024-05-25.
  12. ^ Bram, Damianus (2022-09-23). "Persis Solo U-14 Jadi Runner-Up EPA 2022". Radar Solo (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2024-05-25.
  13. ^ Wiharto, Tri (2022-09-22). "Persis Solo Juara II Elite Pro Academy U-14 2022, Kalah dari Dewa United". Solopos (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2024-05-25.
  14. ^ "Laga Perdana Grup C Elite Pro Academy U-14 Telah Dimulai". PSSI (in Indonesian). 2022-09-06. Retrieved 2024-05-25.
  15. ^ Adnan, Rais (2022-10-03). "Elite Pro Academy 2022: Jadwal, Hasil, dan Klasemen Lengkap". skor.id (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2024-05-25.
  16. ^ "Bhayangkara FC Juara Tiga EPA Liga-1 U-14 2022". Berita Jatim (in Indonesian). 2022-09-22. Retrieved 2024-05-25.
All looks rather routine to me. GiantSnowman 10:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"'Routine coverage' is not a disqualification for notability and may indeed be significant enough to surpass the general notability guideline." It was a national U-16 championship organised by the Indonesian Football Association. WC gudang inspirasi (Read! Talk!) 12:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article says U-14, not U16, and what you have quoted from is an essay only. WP:ROUTINE is an actual guideline which says "routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article". GiantSnowman 14:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, sorry, I meant to say U-14. WC gudang inspirasi (Read! Talk!) 00:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even having read those sources, I am still satisfied that enough coverage is at Elite Pro Academy that we don't need a separate article just to essentially act as a web host for the league tables and results for this under-14 competition. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page is now being attempted stored in draftspace, which in light of this discussion seems more like an attempt to use Wikipedia as a web host. Geschichte (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Kotzé[edit]

Jacques Kotzé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077)[edit]

Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY, WP:GNG, WP:UNDUE, WP:SELFPUB, WP:USERGENERATED, WP:FAIL etc. I think this article should be WP:TNTed; I tried salvaging it by throwing out all unreliable sources (a large group of WP:USERGENERATED/WP:SELFPUB Polish-language websites with little to no editorial review or control over contents published by users or website owners), but there is almost nothing of historical value left. Even the sources that I think might be WP:RS enough seem to WP:FAIL consistently in confirming what the article claims, e.g. Bolesław making all of Kievan Rus' a tributary state of Poland and collecting taxes. Although some sort of Polish military action in Kievan Rus' seems to have taken place in 1077, there is no reason to believe king Bolesław II the Bold was personally participating in it, nor was there a siege of the city of Kiev (Kyiv). If anything, there was fighting over Chernigov. By far, most details appear to have been made up by Polish chronicler Jan Długosz writing 400 years later. (I've added some information in the lead section about that). It is plain that the entire article is not really about the dynastic succession crisis that happened in Kievan Rus' at the time; instead, there are all sorts of fanciful tales about excessive celebrations of victory and sexual immorality within the Polish army (immorality that is blamed on the Rus'/Ruthenians that they allegedly conquered) that are not historically credible as narrated. Pretty much all of this information appears directly or indirectly based on the unreliable chronicle of Długosz.

Moreover, User:SebbeKg created this article on 19 February 2024, 3 days before he was blocked indefinitely for Adding poorly sourced content, false accusations of vandalism. Judging by User talk:SebbeKg, several other of his articles (beginning on 17 December 2023) have been PRODded or nomination for deletion for that reason, but so far, it appears none have actually been deleted (unlike several templates that have been). I think this one should go. It is full of original research and bad sources. The little factual value there may be, is probably not enough for a stand-alone article (WP:NOPAGE), and can be better incorporated in related articles about the members of the dynasties involved. (It might be necessary to critically review SebbeKg's other articles as well, but that's for a follow-up discussion). NLeeuw (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there was a lot of such articles written lately, mainly concering Polish-Ukrainian relations. What's worrying they are in the most part based on the primary sources, which makes them OR. Marcelus (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lutz Heinemann[edit]

Lutz Heinemann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the wealth of sources about this subject, I could not find one that is independent (i.e. not published by an institution or company he's affiliated with). There are one or two interviews, but these also do not count towards notability. The WP:GNG is not met, and I do not think any criteria from WP:NPROF apply here. Toadspike [Talk] 18:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep >30,000 citations according to Google Scholar suggests that criterion 1 of WP:PROF has been met.Uhooep (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Germany. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: per Uhooep, although I could be convinced either way. Queen of Hearts (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Looking at the most cited papers on GS, they are also highly coauthored. Middle author (in a field where that matters) on a highly coauthored paper does not convince me of so much. However, I am seeing enough highly cited papers as first or last author that I think this is a pass of NPROF. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep, for the same reasons as Russ. Like experimental physics, clinical medicine is extremely highly-cited and flooded with consortium findings and recommendations with hundreds of coauthors, which really should not count at all towards any author's citation record. Even so, within Heinemann's top 10 articles on Scopus I count 5 research pieces that have fewer than 15 coauthors (including two as first-author), totaling over 2200 citations. My !vote is "weak" only because it is hard to tell whether that is typical among diabetes clinical researchers and I'm not particularly inclined to write a script analyzing the low-author-number scholarly output of his 1000+ coauthors. JoelleJay (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. There is a consensus that the page should link or otherwise incorporate the sublists rather than be deleted, although there isn't a consensus on the exact process for this, which editors may attempt to take care of through either WP:BOLD editing or initiating a talk page discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of libraries in Australia[edit]

List of libraries in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have split the article into articles by state: List of libraries in Western Australia, List of libraries in Northern Territory, List of libraries in Australian Capital Territory, List of libraries in Tasmania, List of libraries in South Australia, List of libraries in Victoria, List of libraries in New South Wales, and List of libraries in Queensland. -- NotCharizard 🗨 18:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Lists. -- NotCharizard 🗨 18:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep - no policy based rationale for !delete offered by nom. JMWt (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but possibly rename to Lists of libraries in Australia and link to the per-province lists. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep -- I like @Walsh90210's approach. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep agree with above, there is no need to have both the main list and the state-level lists and thus the former should be a list of the state-level lists of Australian libraries. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: I think a list of libraries in Australia meets WP:NLIST which says that stand-alone lists can be created of things/people that are notable as a group and individual things on the list do not need to be notable or have their own wikipedia article if the whole group is notable. I am sure that references can be found to show that Australian libraries as a group are notable, including the Indigenous knowledge libraries and the Mechanics Institute libraries as they are so uniquely related to Australia's history. Secondly, Australian GLAM (galleries, libraries and museums) employees and volunteers are very active and prolific contributors to Wikipedia and a list of Australian libraries will honour their contribution. I have looked at the comments on the list Talk pages and here and I think there could be more clean up of the list and it could be divided into State and Special libraries as suggested. I would also be willing to make improvements to the list and I know other librarian-editors who may want to make edits as well.LPascal (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this idea, thank you for the suggestion! -- NotCharizard 🗨 04:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I've been trying to work out how this list got marked for deletion. It seems to me that NotCharizard? thought it best to break the list into separate state library lists and then delete the main list? But now with all the comments and suggestions we may have all agreed to keep the one main list but structure it differently according to the Australian library system which has a national library, State libraries, local libraries under State governments, then special libraries which can be art libraries, science libraries, government department libraries, mechanics institutes, Indigenous libraries etc... If I am right, can someone (the original nominator for deletion?) please close the deletion discussion, so interested editors can help NotCharizard re-organise the main list and fill out the libraries? I don't want to start work on that main list of libraries if it's going to be deleted. LPascal (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the comments and suggestions saying to structure the list based on library categories? That's how it's done at the moment, but I haven't seen comments here saying that? It seems to consensus so far is to turn it into a list of lists? -- NotCharizard 🗨 06:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is is certainly a notable topic, the point is that the list was huge and still unfinished, so I split it into states and territory lists. Now the country one is a less complete duplicate. -- NotCharizard 🗨 06:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at List of Latin phrases (full) for a potential solution on how to handle this. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the state articles to the main article (if not fully duplicative) and then delete all the non-notable libraries – the generic local ones every community has and the ones every university has don't have to be listed unless there's actually an article. Reywas92Talk 01:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was my original plan also (for some states the list included every sub-branch of every library system, it was intense), but while going through the list I noticed that some quite big library systems that I think would defintely be notable enough for an article don't have one (I plan to begin drafting some soon), while smaller libraries that only just reach notability do. I am hoping that having the full list will encourage the creation of articles. -- NotCharizard 🗨 09:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - surely this not a valid afd target? per JMWt - and also comments by LPascale and Traumnovelle - JarrahTree 10:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on it being a duplicate (although less complete) of the state and territory articles. Sorry for not specifying clearly. -- NotCharizard 🗨 06:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Francois Hanekom[edit]

Francois Hanekom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Not to be confused with the Namibian golfer of the same name. JTtheOG (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Verwey[edit]

Jacques Verwey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M. L. Ashwini[edit]

M. L. Ashwini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Was never elected into a political office that makes one inherently notable TheWikiholic (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anil K. Antony[edit]

Anil K. Antony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Was never elected into a political office that makes one inherently notable TheWikiholic (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burger Schoeman[edit]

Burger Schoeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPC SYSTEM[edit]

NPC SYSTEM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional page for a company that fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Despite being a WP:REFBOMB, sources fail to support claim of notability. Analysis follows:

  • Sources 1, 2, 10, 12, and 14-17 are sponsored content/press releases and not independent.
  • Sources 3, 5, and 11 are WP:INTERVIEWS.
  • Sources 4, 8, and 9 are in WP:TRADES publications and thus ineligible for notability. (Source 4's over-the-top language praising the company and its CEO gives it the ring of sponsored content or paid placement.)
  • Source 6 is a primary source.
  • Source 7 purports to be a clip of a newspaper article but it is hosted on the subject's own website and does not include the date of publication, and search to verify on the publication's site turns up no result.
  • Source 13 is a straight-up advertisement. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 20. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and France. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Had been meaning to get to this one but hadn't found the time till now. Does look like there isn't anything, and interesting to note that the frwiki version of the article (which seems to be created by the glocked MehdiKass) has been deleted due to cross-wiki UPE spam. Wonder if it's a translation? Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kriti Singh Debbarma[edit]

Kriti Singh Debbarma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL, subject is only a contesting in the imminent election and has not occupied any NPOL-able office. These sources are WP:ROUTINE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL as they all say almost the same things, her father being a three-time MP and her mother being a two-time Congress MLA, and they also do not provide sufficient WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG, also, notability is not inherited. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie D'Souza[edit]

Jamie D'Souza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable comedian; fails notability under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER. The vast majority of sources cited in this article are Q&A interview/podcast interviews and thus ineligible to count toward notability as primary sources. There are a handful of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in sources like this and two Chortle reviews for D'Souza's Fringe performances. We would need to see additional WP:SIGCOV for this to clear the bar, and a BEFORE search did not turn any up. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 17:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Sydney 2023 season[edit]

AFL Sydney 2023 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot draftily without consensus because it is a disputed draftification. This is unreferenced, and there ought to be a better route than AfD for things like this. However here we are. Draftify if it is not properly referenced. If good references are provided please let me know and, if the rules allow me to withdraw the nomination, I will do so. (Obviously AfD is not cleanup, except that in this circumstance it is) 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article has no references, and so fails not only notability, which is a policy, but verifiability, which is a non-negotiable policy. Moving a page back into article space after it has been draftified because it has no references provided is disruptive editing, but AFD is a content forum. Wikipedia doesn't need articles with no references. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only source I could find when doing a before was this. It's behind a paywall so I haven't examined it fully, so unless someone can examine it and provide more sourcing showing SIGCOV in RS then this doesn't pass GNG. Ping me if something changes. TarnishedPathtalk 12:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a low level league which receives minor routine newspaper coverage only, the individual season would not meet GNG. (Also, AFL Sydney 2023 season is completely inconsistent syntax, and if it survives the AfD it should be moved to 2023 AFL Sydney season with the incorrect syntax arguably deleted as a tidy-up rather than redirected). Aspirex (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Torchwood items[edit]

List of Torchwood items (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't use the term CRUFT lightly, but this certainly feels like the definition of it. Nothing covers objects in Torchwood to a significant extent, and the bulk of the items covered here are minor and non-notable. I definitely feel this list should likely be deleted, or at the very least partially merged into the Doctor Who items list, though I'm not feeling confident on that list either. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of meeting NLIST, and it looks like it would fit in perfectly on a Fandom wiki. Ping me if anything comes up that could change my mind. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A complete mishmash of random things related to Torchwood, ranging from things that appeared in the background of an episode, to things mentioned once or twice, to just real world things that just happened to be shown on screen. There are very clearly no sources that cover this random gathering as a group or set, meaning it fails WP:NLIST, and probably runs afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. I think even a Fandom wiki would think twice before including a page like this. Rorshacma (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:CSC #2. The topic of this list is "Torchwood" not "Torchwood items", much like the topic of "characters of franchise" is "franchise" so the group does not have to be discussed as a set to meet NLIST, because Torchwood is already notable. No objection to renaming the article, but since we have other AfDs likely to close as merge to here (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardiff Rift) deletion is particularly problematic as it would result in the destruction of content that could be better rewritten from history to be more encyclopedic. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because Torchwood is inherently notable does not mean this list should really be existing. It's a collection of indiscriminate information about random items from the show, none of which seem to have much of an indicator that they're actually important. There's no real encyclopedic value here, as there's nothing really to be discussed. Non-notable subsets related to shows have been removed in the past for these reasons (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Doctor Who henchmen (2nd nomination) as an example from the same shared universe). As for the Cardiff Rift discussion, the Rift isn't really an item, so I'm not sure why it's being brought up in regards to that discussion, especially since the Rift isn't even mentioned in the Torchwood items article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OSE applies both ways; previous removals aren't normative. If there's a need to edit a list, great, do it, improve it by editing rather than deletion. The fact that this is brought up in that deletion discussion gives us a hint that 1) there is a need for an article to cover not-individually-notable aspects from Torchwood, and 2) this may be it, but at the wrong title. I'm not the person to do this, since my wife peace out'ed after Countrycide so I'm hardly informed enough about the series. Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While CSC applies to lists, the list must still meet NLIST in order to be a valid standalone list, regardless of the notability of the parent topic. If this weren't the case, we'd be swarmed with a lot of useless lists like this one that don't really have any benefit to existing beyond the fact there's nothing saying they can't exist. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NLIST and WP:IINFO, per Rorshacma. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for this as a stand-alone list. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft that fails NLIST. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erasing Sherlock[edit]

Erasing Sherlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK there is one source linked, beyond that I couldn't find anything. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Maulawin[edit]

Our Lady of Maulawin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is limited to unreliable sources. While source #2 presents itself as an academic source, it appears to be self-published, and tellingly includes no bibliography. I was unable to find coverage on Google Scholar, Google Books, or the internet searching in English, Spanish and Filipino. signed, Rosguill talk 17:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Peace and Good Voyage of Noveleta[edit]

Our Lady of Peace and Good Voyage of Noveleta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. The citation to The Inquirer is decent, although academic sources should be preferred for religion topics. Otherwise, I can find no coverage of this subject outside the publications of the Philippine Independent Church itself, which are not independent of the subject, having searched in English, Spanish and Filipino on Google Scholar, Books, and the internet, having also searched for plausible colloquialisations of the name, such as "Mahal na Birhen ng Noveleta", "Nanay Paz de Noveleta", etc. signed, Rosguill talk 16:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Johnson (labor leader)[edit]

Jeff Johnson (labor leader) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of questionable notability. I encountered this page during New Page Review and after discussion with the author provided some time for additional sourcing. However, after a couple weeks the sources provided do not meet the standard for WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. A quick review:

  • Source 1, 5, 13, and 19 are oral histories or personal papers/writing by the subject and thus primary sources. Source 5 also includes an unattributed biographical note, but it is published by the Labor Archives of Washington, which cannot be an independent source on the topic of Jeff Johnson, a local labor leader. The union alliance that Johnson led is listed as a major funder of the archives and Johnson was himself a board director of the Labor Archives.
  • Source 2 is to WP:BALLOTPEDIA, about whose reliability there is no consensus.
  • Sources 3 and 8 are to a newsletter published by Johnson's organization and thus not independent.
  • Sources 4, 6, and 7 are to a labor-specific industry publication and thus ineligible for notability per WP:TRADES.
  • Source 9 and 11 are local news blogs that are mostly reprints/paraphrases of an organizational press release.
  • Sources 12 and 14-18 are WP:ROUTINE coverage of Johnson in articles that focus on other issues on which he is invited to comment.

In my analysis, that leaves only Source 10 to count as significant coverage, and we'd need to see more for this to pass notability thresholds. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You previously stated in my discussion with you that the article from the Tacoma News Tribune counts as a reliable secondary source. If that and source 10 count as significant coverage, I believe the page should be allowed to stay up. In addition, I would argue that the other coverage of Johnson in the Seattle Times and Everett Herald constitute significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The Herald and Tribune are real independent news organs (not just blogs) from Tacoma and Everett, Washington, which are the 3rd and 7th largest cities in the state, respectively. Labor history is a traditionally underrepresented field of history, and coverage of leading figures like Johnson on Wikipedia helps promote research. Deleting this article would be contradictory to Wikipedia's efforts to increase diversity in biographies. Mathieulalie (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On further review, I realized the Tacoma News Tribune piece is mostly a reprint of a press release, which makes it a primary source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a JSTOR source, hopefully that will prove notability. Mathieulalie (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JSTOR itself is not a source, it's just an index (like Google News). In the underlying source by Myers (see here), Johnson is briefly quoted/referenced on two pages of a nearly 300-page book. That's a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, not significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 2 is fine for now - as you say, @Dclemens1971 there is no consensus about Ballotpedia, so, unless the source is deprecated in a future discussion, it is perfectly usable.
Sources 4, 6, and 7 are marginally useful, but not unusable. I don't see a reason to dismiss them per WP:TRADES, unless it can be established that the sources are directly connected to Johnson, and therefore not independent.
Sources 12 and 14-18, as you mention, make only cursory mentions of Johnson - but WP:ROUTINE, per my reading, says that routine events are not in and of themselves notable - it does not say that articles covering routine events are completely unusable for any purpose. Here, they are not being used to establish the notability of a routine event, they're being used to establish the notability of Johnson, by showing that he has been invited to make published comments on a variety of issues.
Plus, there's source 10.
Overall, while Jeff Johnson is obviously not a major, epoch-shaping world-historic figure, I see more than enough published material to establish that he is a notable figure in the world of modern labor organizing in the USA. For someone who is studying that topic, this article may be interesting and useful. I see no compelling reason to delete the article, so let's keep it and let interested editors continue to improve it. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Philomathes2357: WP:ROUTINE is specific to WP:NEVENTS. Biographies go off of WP:BASIC and the "trivial coverage" mention there. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was my general impression, thanks for the clarification. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Philomathes2357. There is enough evidence of notability in the published sources.--User:Namiba 13:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see just enough sources to pass GNG. This is especially true if the biographical note and the content description to the Jeff Johnson papers are independent. --Enos733 (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not, though -- they're published by the Labor Archives of Washington, on whose board Johnson serves and which is funded by Johnson's organization. See here: https://labor.washington.edu/labor-archives#about Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Labor Archives of Washington is part of the University of Washington Libraries Special Collections, and the biography to his finding aid was written by a UW Special Collections staff member, funded by the Washington state budget. Johnson's papers were processed independently of his input. Finding aids are academic research materials, not promotional materials. The article was not written to promote Johnson's political career (even if it were, it would have little effect since he is retired) but as a public service to promote knowledge about the state labor council's activities, specifically its role in farmworker organizing and the 15Now campaign. Furthermore, neither the Labor Archives nor Johnson receives any money from people viewing his papers (or any other collections). Mathieulalie (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnson appears to serve on a board of an entity that supports the Labor Archive, not the archive itself. And in this particular context, it probably shouldn't be a surprise that the former president of a local labor union would be asked to join the board of a non-profit focused on a labor archive. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Labor Archives also isn't a nonprofit or a business, it is part of the University of Washington Libraries. Mathieulalie (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, with that second sentence above I was meaning to refer to the Friends of the Labor Archives organization. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A biography about someone who's on the board of an organization that exists to give money to an entity and whose own organization is a donor to the entity cannot be truly independent if written by staff of an entity. See WP:COISOURCE, "less direct interests can be harder to see and more subjective to establish." Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep or redirect to Washington State Labor Council - there is smoke here. The problem is that we can't track down where the fire is. If you'll allow me to be morbid for a moment, I strongly suspect Johnson will immediately and unquestionably meet our notability guidelines the moment he dies and has obituaries written about him in several Washington newspapers. Fortunately for Johnson, he is still alive. But for our purposes and at the present time, the sourcing is thin (as the OP notes). What's available often briefly quotes Johnson by virtue of his position as the head of the union, and does not dive into specifics about the person themselves. I'd be fine with either keeping this article or merging its content into the organization that he ran. To me, the following sources count towards notability and have swayed me:
  • Ballotpedia with its bio + "In 2015, Ballotpedia identified Jeff Johnson (Washington) as a top influencer by state."
  • The biography written by archivists in charge of his papers should also count, as we have no reason to assume that the decision that Johnson's papers were important enough to archive was swayed by outside factors.
  • Sources I don't think count toward notability include:
  • I don't believe nwLaborPress/Northwest Labor Press can count towards notability because it's a newspaper that specifically focuses on unions in Oregon and Washington. To me, it's the definition of a trade publication within this topic area, and our guidelines say that "there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability."
  • The Tacoma News Tribune source is a press release with a little added text. For our purposes, it's a republished WP:PRSOURCE.
  • The Seattle Times's first reference has Johnson mentioned twice for an email that he wrote to politicians. Subsequent references appear to also briefly quote him, although I've run out of free articles and haven't been able to view all of them. If that holds true, they don't meet the standard at WP:BASIC: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability". An example of trivial given in footnote 7 there is "a mention in passing ('John Smith at Big Company said...' [...] ) that does not discuss the subject in detail."
  • The Olympian is close as there is some context given. However, it's thinly written without much depth.
  • HeraldNet articles 1, 2, and 3 don't meet WP:BASIC. Johnson is briefly quoted in all of them.
  • Patch is not reliable per WP:USERGENERATED. (See the disclaimer at the top: "This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.") Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In addition to the sources accepted as reliable, multiple mentions elsewhere add to notability. In addition to sources accessible on the internet, as a union leader it is highly probable that the subject has also been covered in as yet undigitized print media.--Ipigott (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Just enough evidence of notability and does no harm. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep minimally satisfies the WP:GNG. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Sunnah Foundation[edit]

As Sunnah Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is written based on highly promotional, press releases and self published sources. Most of the sites are unreliable, some of them are recirculation of press releases, contain bank account information for collecting donations, some contain external links to the site of the organisation. I think the purpose of creation of this article is to promote the organisation. Topic of This article can be well explained in the article of the owner. Although I am not sure whether the owner's article warrants his own article or not. - AlbeitPK (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to ASTV (Thailand). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News1 (Thai TV channel)[edit]

News1 (Thai TV channel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. The sole cited source does not appear to actually mention News1 (นิวส์วัน) or its former name 11News1. Web search results for the Thai name did not turn up any usable references, although my ability to search in Thai is admittedly limited. signed, Rosguill talk 16:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, and Thailand. signed, Rosguill talk 16:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's weird that there is no ASTV article here, only the dab page ASTV. News1 is the latest reincarnation of that TV channel. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The station/network is notable under its previous name ASTV, the right-wing ultra-partisan channel that fuelled the 2000s' anti-Thaksin protests. See this paper for example. However, the article is an unattributed, confusing rough translation of the Thai Wikipedia article about the station's flagship channel, one out of the five channels it used to operate. There should definitely be an ASTV (Thailand) article, which should also cover its current operations as News1, but I'm not sure it'd be a good idea to convert this article for that purpose, seeing as it's barely comprehensible in its current state. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We should probably just start a stub for that article and convert this page to a redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 13:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Created. Redirect to ASTV (Thailand). --Paul_012 (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect is good at this time, thanks for putting in that work. signed, Rosguill talk 16:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D&W Performance[edit]

D&W Performance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of the sources in the article appear to be from the company and I couldn't find anything meaningful about the company in either Google or Google News. It's a near orphan, with the only meaningful link being an unsourced mention in the article for Auburn, New York, site of its headquarters. Alansohn (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and New York. Alansohn (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG and NCORP. Looking for D&W Performance yielded nothing of value. D&W Diesel, which I think is the same company, has more hits but everything that turns up is trivial coverage. Pahunkat (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Absence of meaningful deletion rationale. Nominated by inexperienced user. Verified, recognized settlements are never deleted. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sauviat[edit]

Sauviat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete A page for every municipality in every country might not merit a place on Wikipedia. Wikilover3509 (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 16:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lap Corner, Indiana[edit]

Lap Corner, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A pure GNIS stub about, well, the only things I could find suggested that "lap corner" is a surveying term, but I couldn't verify that. Anyway, there's nothing there and it seems there never was. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Not a single mention in the detailed history of Clay and Owen Counties: [17], and nothing at the site now in satellite images. Does not appear on USGS topo maps until 1957: [18], and in no map is it shown as anything other than an intersection. The article is a flat-out falsehood. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed, nothing found.James.folsom (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 16:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vegepet[edit]

Vegepet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY, references are either non-independent or trivial. I did search for the company but found nothing in Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google News that'd lead me to believe it qualifies for GNG. Multiple references were added after a PROD but after reviewing all but three (one was an improper citation and the other was a broken url) I am still of the opinion it fails notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment review of references below.

Going through all the references I do not believe WP:GNG has been met with the changes.

Extended content
  • Compassion Circle sells the product, therefore not independent.

Response: The product was developed in the mid-1980s by Jim Peden and Barbara Lynn Peden, who wrote a book, Dogs and Cats Go Vegetarian (1988).

  • The 2023 systematic review of vegetarian pet food does not mention Vegepet.
  • The PETA citation is a search result and thus not a proper citation and it's unreasonable to expect anyone to look at over 300 results to verify anything.
  • References 4-8 do not mention Vegepet.
  • "Keep Your Pet Healthy the Natural Way" does not mention Vegepet.
  • I have not checked the 1988 book but I doubt it mentions Vegepet given it only existed for two years, if anyone can verify please do.
  • Sustainable Pet Food Association doesn't mention Vegepet.
  • Refs 13-14 don't appear to mention it but wouldn't qualify as establishing notability due to not being reliable.
  • The claim that the Vegan Sourcebook 'includes detailed information on VegePet' is quite false, it's a one paragraph advertisement in the appendix. Advertisements don't establish notability.
  • James Peden's book is self-published.
  • Vegetarian versus Meat-Based Diets for Companion Animals is an MDPI journal with the author of it being the author of the website, he's referencing and advertising himself in a 'scientific' journal.
  • This reference, once again to the SPFA, does not mention Vegepet.
  • The reference to Compassion Circle is not independent and cannot establish notability
  • The AVMA is seemingly the only good reference in this article, but I don't see an article reviewing the nutritional adequacy of the product as establishing GNG
  • Vegepet itself cannot establish it's own notability
  • The Guardian article isn't about Vegepet.
  • Refs 23-29 do not appear to mention Vegepet.
  • Reference from earlier that doesn't mention Vegepet.

31-32 Don't mention Vegepet anywhere.

  • First article hosted on Researchgate doesn't mention Vegepet and the latter is a broken link.

The article "Vegepet" merits inclusion in Wikipedia due to several reasons:

  • Notable Subject: Vegepet is a significant topic within the realm of veganism and pet care, addressing the growing interest in providing vegan diets for pets.
  • Relevant Information: The article provides valuable information about the concept of vegetarian and vegan pet food, contributing to the understanding of alternative diets for pets.
  • Community Interest: There is evident interest in the subject, as demonstrated by the ongoing discussion and contributions from Wikipedia users. This indicates that the topic is relevant and worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia.
  • Educational Value: Including information about Vegepet aligns with Wikipedia's goal of providing comprehensive and informative content to its readers. It allows individuals to learn about different dietary options for pets and the ethical considerations involved.
  • Neutral Presentation: The article presents information in a neutral manner, providing facts and references to support its content. It adheres to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding neutrality and verifiability.

Given these reasons, the article "Vegepet" should be retained on Wikipedia to continue serving as a valuable resource for individuals interested in vegetarian and vegan pet food options. MaynardClark (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you write that yourself? What you have presented here looks like something an AI would write. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article MaynardClark (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC) I would like to know where this slice of vegetarian and vegan pet food research fits into the longstanding historical forward movement of the topic. MaynardClark (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are suitable sources then post them: the onus is on you to provide them. I have already done a search for sources too but found nothing. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VegePet "made news" in its time (from the mid-1990s through 2010) by being a pioneering brand in the field of vegan pet nutrition. Developed by Jim Peden and his then-wife, Barbara Lynn Peden, VegePet was among the first to offer plant-exclusive dietary solutions for pets, specifically dogs and cats. This was significant because it addressed the ethical concerns of feeding pets without harming other animals, aligning with the principles of veganism and vegetarianism.
Key Points:
  • Innovative Approach: VegePet introduced VegeDog and VegeCat, DIY pet food supplements that allowed pet owners to prepare nutritionally complete vegan meals for their pets. This was innovative at a time when commercial vegan pet food options were extremely limited.
    Historical Context: The development of VegePet occurred before the widespread use of the Internet, which means it gained traction through word of mouth, niche publications, and communities interested in veganism and ethical pet care.
    Media Coverage: Publications like Vegetarian Times mentioned VegePet in several articles, highlighting its role in the emerging market of plant-based pet foods. This helped establish its credibility and spread awareness among vegetarians and vegans who were looking for ethical feeding options for their pets.
    Ongoing Development: The Pedens' continuous product development and the eventual competition from other companies entering the plant-exclusive pet food market kept the conversation around vegan pet diets alive, contributing to its historical significance.
    Limited Online Presence: Despite its contributions, VegePet is not widely praised on the Internet, possibly due to its early development before the digital age and the rise of newer brands that utilized online marketing strategies more effectively. However, I have found at least two articles in Vegetarian Times that praised VegeDog at the time. This article needs time for more development.MaynardClark (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this reads like an AI chatbot wrote it. This is highly concerning. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:NORG (particularly WP:NPRODUCT) or WP:GNG. I concur with the source analysis by Traumnovelle. I found one newspaper article that is independent, reliable, and might be considered significant coverage,[19] but it is from 1989, and couldn't find any significant coverage since their initial release (WP:NSUSTAINED). Being mentioned when media outlets write about vegetarian diets and supplements for pets doesn't make it Wikipedia-notable. (If the article is kept, it needs serious pruning to remove unrelated content and promotional content.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has survived an AfD before, and the Wikipedia notability article - WP:GNG - says that Notability does not expire.
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article Quite a few 'delete' votes are about (a) current state of sourcing in the article OR (b) whether or not the innovative Vegepet product of the 1980s is optimal by today's veterinary nutritional standards, which is not the WP:GNG we are taught to follow. MaynardClark (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MaynardClark, I can't find a previous afd for this article, could you please link to it? Schazjmd (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit misleading to say Quite a few 'delete' votes are about...whether or not the innovative Vegepet product of the 1980s is optimal by today's veterinary nutritional standards since there's only the nominator and me, and neither of us have mentioned veterinary nutritional standards. Schazjmd (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. This is the only AfD. I looked at the first history screen when I had been reviewing the article's history and somehow ended up on the most recent screen. My bad! Sorry. I've been busy with other things and don't really have time for an AfD right now, but I'm pushing myself to look for references. I apologize. That is my error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark (talk • contribs) 0236 23 May 2024 (UTC (UTC)
  • Delete. If kept, rename and immprove. It's a poor quality article, full of irrelevant information that is nothing to do with the subject of the article (I have trimmed some of it, but it needs a lot more). I vote for delete, as both the company and product do not meet the notability requirements. If retained I recommend it is moved to Compassion Circle and adapted into an article about the company that includes some appropriate content on the product. Not that the company appears to meet the GNG either. MarcGarver (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Vegepet is notable as a pioneering brand in vegan pet nutrition, offering innovative plant-based dietary solutions for pets and contributing to the discussion of ethical feeding options.MaynardClark (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this is a discussion, not a count of votes, so adding the "keep" here was unnecessary. You already made a statement earlier. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article is a WP:COATRACK, with all but the first two references not mentioning Vegepet and the first being non-independent. I could conceivably support a move or rename to Compassion Circle as suggested above, but not in the article's current state, as few of the references are about the company either. I could not find any article about Vegepet that is both independent and not trying to sell me something, which suggests to me WP:GNG and WP:NCORP are both failed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What to do about coatracks - Article gives constructive advice; perhaps follow that advice. But the article was about Vegepet and its contributions at the time as the basis of its notability - at the time of its innovations. We know that, later on, other famous persons have entered the fray with meatless pet foods, including Mark Cuban with WildEarth (vegan dog food) and Good Food Institute (generally alt-meat or 'meatless meat'). I could have wanted to see more of a timeline approach - in a much different article - about the innovations in meatless pet foods over the millennia (and in the 20th and 21st centuries). But that would be a different article (or a 'main article' on a related topic, perhaps to be cited within the article. But we could think of words like obscured, overlooked, unheralded, neglected, unsung, forgotten, marginalized, underappreciated, anonymous, and unrecognized to describe this profound historical contributor who risks being glossed over and forgotten because nothing was written about them by historians of stature in a pre-inernet period, and available content written about the Pedens (this contributor) is treated dismissively because what remains seems to be from 'movement allies' who wanted solutions to the moral dilemma of killing some animals (called 'food animals') to feed their preferred animals (called 'pets'). I am thinking that Barbara Lynn Peden's book (allied with their development of these supplements, to frame their rationale for their products), Dogs and Cats Go Vegetarian, was or may have been self-published. Their philosophy may have reflected their historical period's lay assumptions that we can get all the nutrients through supplementation, so feeding products should emphasize marketability and user satisfaction (nutritional completeness, pet palatability, pet digestibility, etc.), all considered to be 'solvable challenges' in their approach. Sure, they seem to have been innovative (in the 'DIY tradition'), and we may not even know how sustainable it is or was. But it's an idea, and it seems to have fallen to others to develop from where they left off, and now the vegan pet food industry seems to have hundreds of millions of dollars in it. Maybe the Pedens went bankrupt and/or sold off their IP and other assets 'in a fire sale' because the entity 'Compassion Circle' seems to have become one major distributor for the book and pet products (others also sell VegePet). The backstory on Compassion Circle may be a nonprofit that it is (or was) run by Kim Sheridan, a naturopath who started this nonprofit which (in early 2015) became a distributor for VegePet in 2015, and also in 2015, began filming interviews for a film, The Vegan Pet Paradigm: Toward a World Where All Animals are Healthy, Long-Lived, and Free of Suffering. Thus, they are concerned with veganization of human companion animals. Kim Sheridan, ND, is married to naturopath, Jareth Sheridan, ND, and they practice naturopathy and do other work in their spare time; Kim Sheridan has written two 'metaphysical books'. Their website used to be http:www.VeganPets.com, but The Wayback Machine cannot crawl that domain, and Compassion Circle had announced in a March 16. 2015 e-mail that they had acquired the assets from Jim Peden (who was 'moving on' to do other creative vegan things, like writing novels). But I found their promotional website on Alignable. This article is not about them for various reasons. Without a strong historical presence, it seems that VegePet may have fizzled out, but it is being manufactured, and we don't know where it is produced, nor by whom. Vecado of Canada also markets VegePet products, along with other supports for plant-based pets. If an article is historical, what is the current standard against which earlier claims are being compared, and what did those historical actors think that they were improving or making possible? MaynardClark (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MaynardClark:: I appreciate that you've done your research on this subject, but—with all respect—your comment above mirrors everything that is wrong with the article: Tons and tons of background and reasons why we should care and notable people involved with similar product lines and business ideas, but essentially nothing at all about VegePet products or the company who makes them. And from my limited research, it appears there isn't anything about VegePet out there that isn't from a vendor, i.e. non-independent. If we want to have an article about Compassion Circle or veganism in animals, great, we can do that, but this article is supposed to be about VegePet products. If you want to keep the article, you need to find suitable sources about that specific topic rather than giving us a dissertation on all the visionaries who have worked in the plant-based pet food industry.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all the above. There doesn't seem to be any substantial independent coverage of the purported subject of the article. Some of what is here could perhaps be included in an article about supplements for vegetarian pets, or possibly included in the vegetarian dog food article, but here it's (as already noted) a coatrack. Remove the coats and there's virtually nothing left. Brunton (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But these objections included in Delete votes are untrue claims. There are numerous Vegetarian Times articles over several years, and Vegetarian Times is independent of what any enterprising inventor does. MaynardClark (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "Vegepet" Wikipedia article should be deleted for several reasons. First, it fails to meet notability guidelines, as it hasn't received significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Second, the content of the article is overly promotional, reading more like an advertisement rather than an impartial encyclopedic entry, which violates the neutral point of view policy. Finally, the article lacks sufficient verifiable information, relying heavily on primary sources and unverifiable claims, thus not meeting Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and reliability. 12.75.41.103 (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first two sections read like an ad, seem to be machine-generated content, and don't establish notability. The "Study" section (written by a different editor) summarizes a real study, and if the summary is correct, then it contradicts the ad copy that makes up most of the article. Anything that can salvaged can be placed better in context in the articles listed under "See also", Rjjiii (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus reached, and deletion rationale was only two words. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijit Mukherjee (earth scientist)[edit]

Abhijit Mukherjee (earth scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Akeosnhaoe (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: As per my checking, I found no reliable secondary sources with in-depth coverage that can establish notability. The sources are just passing mentions, and the subject fails to meet the WP:GNG criteria. The majority of the article is also unsourced. GrabUp - Talk 15:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Colombia Mil Mi-17 crash[edit]

2024 Colombia Mil Mi-17 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The majority of news sources are primary. There is a failure of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE with coverage ending three weeks ago and WP:SUSTAINED. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a crash with 9 fatalities is not an everyday occurence, it succeeds WP:NOTNEWS due to the number of fatalities and is the second most fatal helicopter crash this year second to the Lumut Mid-air collision this year, it is the single most fatal crash this year also. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is not an everyday occurence doesn't mean it has to be included. If we were to do this, we would have hundreds of articles on accidents that are likely not notable enough to be included in wikipedia other than the number of deaths.
Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. All news coverage ended three weeks ago. Even searching the term brings up different helicopter accidents not related to this event.
All news sources whether cited or not are all primary sources without much analysis of the event and are all short in length. The event doesn't have much significant coverage with no secondary sources.
If a helicopter with three people on board crashed and it were the second deadliest (or first) helicopter accident of the year, would an article on that accident need to be created? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTNEWS this should be deleted. Frankly 2024 Lumut mid-air collision probably should be deleted as well. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2024 Lumut mid-air collision had significant coverage as i've listed below :
[20]
[21]
[22]
3 Mainstream sources from seperate parts around the world covered it, however thats for a different discussion, here we have :
[23]
[24]
only 2 here but still enough to cover this and pass Notability guidelines here combined with the sources cited in the article. Lolzer3000 (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is just a bing search that brings up absolutely nothing related to this accident. The only news shown are from the 2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash.
The second source given is a primary source that adds nothing new to the accident. As stated before, the article must have clearly sustained continued coverage which the event fails. As tragic as the accident was, the event clearly does not have significant coverage and lacks secondary sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the first one, was in a rush to pack up for class didnt see i linked a random bing search this is what i was trying to link : [25] my apoligies! Lolzer3000 (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine :)
The source you linked, published ~1 day after the accident contains pretty much the same content as other sources without adding anything new to the accident. Whilst it is a reliable source, the article is pretty small and is quite short when compared to other recent aviation accidents. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pahle India Foundation[edit]

Pahle India Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a non-notable organization with no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. A Google News search for "Pahle India Foundation" yields only a few passing mentions and routine coverage, but nothing that satisfies the criteria of WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS 💬 12:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffman Crossing, Indiana[edit]

Hoffman Crossing, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Baker, as can be seen in the quotation, does not say that there was an elevator here, and I see no sign of it. At any rate, there's precious little sign of anything else here. Survey says this was just a freight station. Mangoe (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - The 1936 source refers to "instrumental in building a loading station for grain". In our current era, this loading station is referred to as "Grain elevators are facilities at which grains are received, stored, weighed, and then distributed for direct use, process manufacturing, or export."Grain Elevators. Editor Sweet kate was merely using modern terminology, but it's the same thing. I have added the clarification to the article, and sourced it. — Maile (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt that the terminology has evolved that much in the twenty-nine years since Baker's book was published, but at any rate, we have deleted a fair number of spurious "communities" which consisted of an elevator by the tracks and nothing else, even when one could see from GMaps that it really was an elevator and was still there. Mangoe (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a speedy keep, we discuss everything for however long it takes. James.folsom (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not clear enough for a speedy keep. The article currently says: "Hoffman Crossing is an unincorporated community in ..." Maile, is it a community? Geschichte (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A grain elevator is not a community, it is an agricultural facility and thus subject to WP:GNG. That standard is manifestly failed in this case, as no sources could be found other than the passing mention (cited above) showing that it exists. The fact that it's named after a person "instrumental" in building it is neither here nor there. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - aside from a 1951 article about a fatal car crash at the railroad crossing, I'm not seeing any coverage of this site at all. What I can find is coverage for Hoffmans, New Jersey and a location near West Milton, Pennsylvania. The grain elevator doesn't make the site notable, and I'm not seeing anything that would indicate a WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND pass. Hog Farm Talk 00:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First I don't think this is the correct location, the Monon rail should still be there, or at least evidence of it. I don't see it in satellite view. According to transportation.gov there are no crossings on that hwy now, and from past AFDs I know that the monon existed "fairly" recently and find it hard to believe there is no trace left. This makes me question the only good source on this article. There isn't a community there now. I cannot find any further sources.James.folsom (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot tell when the rails were taken up but the traces in the current GMaps aerial are very slight. It's much more visible in older shots, and it doesn't help that, for some reason, they moved the label to the west so that the GNIS coords are significantly off the mark. The actual location is not the hooked-shaped driveway/farm indicated now; it's the very broad, bright driveway patch on the NE side of the road further SE. Going NNE the edge of the field with the trees to the right is where the old grade was; eventually it gets taken over by Boles Rd. Going south the only sign is a few places where you can see a straight line break in the trees.
This branch of the Monon was constructed around 1906 to reach coal fields; it left the mainline at a nondescript spot called Wallace Jct. and headed SSW to Victoria. The railroad apparently called the spot "Hoffman", and I found pictures from 1979 showing that there was a siding here and nothing else. By that time it was owned by the L&N and it's too much work to find out when exactly they abandoned the trackage. Mangoe (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your right, I mistook that "dip" in the trees for a stream. But on closer inspection I can find places were you can see the track bed. James.folsom (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 11:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lukáš Jánošík[edit]

Lukáš Jánošík (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any in-depth coverage for this Slovak men's football player to meet WP:GNG. The only news website I found regarding him is an injury, but something tells me that it's more of a trivial mention. Using the keyword "Lukáš Janošík" on Google, even with "site:.sk", my search results only came up with database, club websites, passing mentions, and *facepalm* random namesakes. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Over 130 first-tier games over a 9-year period, 2016–17 league champion as well as one stint playing abroad - usually doesn't look like a deletion candidate. I haven't had the time to look for sources yet. Geschichte (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some quick links, assessment later. [26] [27] [28] [29] Geschichte (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added two references and expanded the page past stub status. If nominator @CuteDolphin712: agrees these count as "in-depth coverage to meet GNG" I would request an early close here. C679 11:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only possible GNG material is Mladá fronta Dnes, which you added on "MSK Žilina" sub-heading (first and second paragraph). The rest of additional sources are routine announcements. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources presented here which show notability. GiantSnowman 07:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serkan Ramanlı[edit]

Serkan Ramanlı (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — He seems to be a parliamentarian which isn't mentioned in the article.[34] Semsûrî (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Semsûrî Hmm, okay, but none of the offices I see here are NPOL passable. Unless there's something else you mean with "parliamentarian". Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By parliamentarian I mean he's a member of the national parliament since 2023 which I assume passes NPOL per: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office..." Semsûrî (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, now the article clearly says that as it was not before, and I couldn't a source that says that. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 11:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montolieu Oliphant-Murray, 1st Viscount Elibank[edit]

Montolieu Oliphant-Murray, 1st Viscount Elibank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing the RS that show why this person would be considered notable against the inclusion criteria. He apparently has an painting in the National Gallery and entries in the directories of the peerage. But WP:NOTGENEOLOGY JMWt (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a member of the House of Lords, he is automatically notable. I have added the Hansard page for his appointment. He was an officer in the Royal Navy, but perhaps there were other reasons for his appointment as a Viscount. Also, his death was reported in the New York Times. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For others, it seems that the position in the House of Lords was hereditary and as far as I can discern from Hansard, this person never spoke in a debate. JMWt (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant. Ingratis (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Pre-reform peers were automatically members of the House of Lords, which was and is one of the Houses of Parliament, and so pass NPOL. Ingratis (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Viscount Elibank. This article is a genealogy permastub, in direct contradiction with WP:NOTGENEALOGY. While this individual does de jure pass NPOL, the lack of participation in any debate means that, de facto, he was not a member of the House of Lords. Saying he is "automatically notable" is the same type of argument that people would cling to when defending footballers who had 0 games played, but still passed WP:NFOOTBALL, which eventually doomed that SNG to death by RfC. I don't have access to the NYT obit, but I'm 80% sure it does not satisfy the significant coverage required by WP:BIO, and besides we'd need more than one source. Since the NPOL is an SNG, which explicitly allows for deletion (articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found), I think the GNG is a better metric for notability. I can at least find some debates where the 2nd Viscount was involved, but none for the first. I wouldn't vote delete or redirect on an active pre-reform Lord, but here we're very clearly lacking coverage. Pilaz (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the guideline you're looking for is WP:NOPAGE. Curbon7 (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject passes WP:NPOL as a member of the House of Lords, and thus is notable, but must still surpass the minimum requirements to maintain an article established at WP:NOPAGE. A cursory search on newspapers.com using this query returned a number of decent supplementary sources, including [35]. His obit here also helps fill in further biographical details. This obit contains some family info. British newspapers are generally poorly digitized on newspapers.com, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were more in other archives. There seems to be just enough to be sufficient. Curbon7 (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While the additional biographical information is certainly welcome, sources 1 and 3 do not provide significant coverage of the subject and expand on the already present WP:NOTGENEALOGY problems of this article. Secondly, obituaries are primary sources, so keeping this article with only primary sources available goes directly against WP:PRIMARY #5 (which happens to be a policy). Notable people usually get significant coverage well after their death, so that's what I'd like to see to strike my !vote. Pilaz (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject passes WP:NPOL, so he is notable full stop. What we need is sourcing to expand on the article so it is not, as you say, a genealogy. These sources do that by providing key biographical details, such as the positions he held. These sources are not meant to provide WP:SIGCOV because the subject is already notable, they are meant to be supplementary sources to expand the article beyond the current genealogy perma-stub. Curbon7 (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, this is one of the exceptions to the rule: someone who inherited a HoL seat and didn't participate in debates shouldn't be considered a politician. In the same way I don't think that every person appointed to national legislature inherits notability for the purposes of en.wiki. For example there are 3000 members of the National People's Congress and we do not assume every member meets the notability criteria there. JMWt (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely something worth taking up at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). I certainly understand what you're saying and recognize consensus can change, but am generally adverse to new interpretations being established in one-off AfDs. Curbon7 (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability established. Added a reference. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One point that's been missed in the discussion above is that his inherited Scottish peerage did not entitle him to a seat in the House of Lords; the Viscountcy created in 1911 did. Maybe that has more to do with the political connections of the Master of Elibank than his father, but a Conservative being added to the House of Lords under the last majority Liberal administration suggests to me that something more than routine was going on here. Choess (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, presumably WP:NPOL doesn't apply..? In which case the above claims of 'automatic notability' doesn't apply either. Edit: maybe I've misunderstood your point. Are you saying he was or wasn't in the HoL? Edit 2: I'm wrong, your point is that it wasn't an inherited HoL seat. JMWt (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep good article and a member of British nobility thanks Briannemartindale (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Van Der Laag[edit]

Karin Van Der Laag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. Badly sourced, possible sockpuppetry and/or UPE. Fails WP:BIO. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which 2 significant roles in notable productions? Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isidingo/Maggie Webster; The Story of an African Farm/Tant Sannie. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to suggest that her role in Isidingo is significant, it is one of many small parts. Theroadislong (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/celeb-news/breaking-karin-van-der-laag-maggie-from-isidingo-where-is-she-now-20-september-2023/ ; https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2013-07-09-isidingo-gets-a-15-year-rewind/ ; https://www.dstv.com/kyknet/af-za/blad/desember-2017/vat-n-vet-kans-om-gewig-te-verloor/nuus ;https://www.republikein.com.na/nuus/vat-n-vet-kans-2018-09-07... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Absence of meaningful deletion rationale. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Labiobarbus cyanopareja[edit]

Labiobarbus cyanopareja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete It is a species of fish. Even Fishbase has no photos. Doesn’t merit a page Wikilover3509 (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Cousins[edit]

Logan Cousins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Young footballer played a few minutes in a cup game. Does not yet meet GNG, only gets passing mentions and routine coverage. The article in a club magazine isn't independent. Could also be draftified as an ATD. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 08:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close‎ as the AfD was started by a now-blocked sock. Number 57 22:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dearne & District F.C.[edit]

Dearne & District F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC because there aren't any reliable secondary sources and fails WP:NTEAM because they only play in the minor-leagues. Plus, I searched for them online and there are no reliable secondary sources that feature the team in any kind of significant depth, unless you count the Barnsley Chronicle which I don't.Dafydd y Corach (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They have just been promoted to the 10th tier of English football - all of the hundreds of other clubs at that level have an article. There are plenty of sources and more will follow Kivo (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Killi Luqman (2017)[edit]

Battle of Killi Luqman (2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG as well WP:NEVENT - not WP:LASTING —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emji Spero[edit]

Emji Spero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in third-party media -- but this is referenced entirely to sources directly affiliated with the claims, such as the promotional pages of the subject's books on the self-published websites of their own publishers, with not even one hit of proper GNG-building media coverage shown at all.
There is a literary award in the mix here which would be a valid notability claim if the article were properly sourced, but as a specialty award it still isn't "inherently" notable enough to confer an instant inclusion freebie in the absence of any GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This article is listed for consideration under "deletion sorting visual artists". Perhaps a poet could take a look. Should we remove the unreferenced stuff and duplicate sentences and see what is left? --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article relies on primary sources, specifically the publisher promotional website. Several dead links. WP:BEFORE shows a review in Los Angeles Review, an interview in Bomb (magazine) and Jacket2. They seem to have a presence on the west coast, but still, the sourcing is thin and I think it is WP:TOOSOON. The claim that Spero was involved in the editing of "We Both Laughed in Pleasure: The Selected Diaries of Lou Sullivan" is not supported by the references. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. SK2/4 (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Computer Emergency Response Team[edit]

Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It doesn't appear to be a notable company. I searched for sources using all alternatives: "CERT," "CERTIN," and "CERT India," but couldn't find anything that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. Dafydd y Corach (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to be a government agency, not a company. Article needs some cleanup, but I don't think it's worthy of deletion. Gottagotospace (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The arguments to delete are a lot stronger than those to keep, with the one exception of Culllen's suggestion that this be pruned to a list of notable publications; and even there, other editors point out that such a list may duplicate existing articles. The usefulness of this list as a resource for editors is not a persuasive argument at AfD, though I would gladly provide a userspace copy for anyone who wishes to turn this into a project-space resource. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Watch Tower Society publications[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Watch Tower Society publications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a list covering every publication ever published by Jehovah's Witnesses. I do not think it merits inclusion per WP:NLIST. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:LINKFARM. This is a listing of every known publication (some linked, some not) generated by the Jehovah's Witnesses dating back to the 19th century, up to the current 21st Century. — Maile (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the deletion. If one wants a list of the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses, one can visit the official website. (I know that not every publication ist available there. However, the existence of secret publications like Shepherd the Flock of God is easily found on the Internet. To include this big list just because of the few secret ones is disproportionate.) Junkönig (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the publications are listed in the Watch Tower Publications Index, which is ‘on the official website’ but isn’t prominently featured, nor in a particularly helpful format, and it isn’t as straightforwardly accessible as suggested here. Only recent publications are prominently featured on the official site, and none of the early works.—Jeffro77 Talk 13:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I fail to see how WP:LINKFARM applies here. As for WP:NLIST, I will quote directly from the guideline to argue for this articles existence
"Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."
As the JW's and the WTS are in themselves notable, this list, by WP:NLIST, appears to be a valid addition. I will also copy/paste my argument from the first AfD I participated in on this topic back in 2015, as I believe the argument still stands
"I'm drawn to this line in the WP:NOTDIRECTORY rules "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". I personally believe that this significantly contributes to the list topic (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses). Dr. Zoe Knox, in an article entitled "Writing Witness History: The Historiography of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania" (published in the Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011) notices that "While a handful of annotated bibliographies and literature reviews have been published, usually as an addendum to monographs, there has been no sustained attempt to survey and chart scholarship on Witness history", and also mentions that "the Society has placed far less importance on the production and preservation of material on the organisation’s own history, which has led to a limited engagement with historical inquiry". I believe that this list, from a purely academic standpoint, helps significantly with the latter issue as raised by Dr. Knox by providing a reference point that the JW's themselves do not."
So in sum, I would suggest keeping this list but possibly trimming it a bit. But NOT wholesale deletion. Vyselink (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about the notability of JWs as a whole but if there are reliable sources that list stuff like "group of every JW publication since the 1800s" together. That's what NLIST is talking about since notability isn't inherited. The most notable publications (the Watchtower and Awake, Photo Drama of Creation, etc) are already somewhat covered over at Jehovah's Witnesses publications so this list is duplicative at best and otherwise "indiscriminate" at worst. I suppose one could propose a merge if you feel that strongly about it? I'm not sure it would all that useful from this perspective but I wanted to offer it as an alternative. Knox's argument about the lack of interest sounds more like a convincing argument for deletion, sadly. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interjected comment: I would argue that this part of NINI applies here: "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums". WTS publications are books/magazines (and on occasion films) and personally I think meet the "certain circumstances". I believe that this list does however need to be trimmed (and doesn't need anywhere near as many pictures). Also, as a side note, Dr. Knox did NOT say there was a lack of interest, she said it hasn't been done. There is a difference, especially in today's academic publishing world. Vyselink (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not intend for this to be a "bundled" nomination but for context... the companion article List of Jehovah's Witnesses publications has a tag for primary sources. Since what exactly a primary source is might not be as glaringly obvious to a non-JW, these would be refs 1–16, 22–27, 29, 32, and 34. I think this list article has the potential to be improved and the tag addressed as there are some JW publications that are collectively talked about in reliable sources. List of Watch Tower Society publications (the subject of this deletion nomination) is literally intended as a list for every Watchtower publication since its inception and all of the cited references are primary sources. Hence my hesitation in suggesting a merge as a valid alternative, even if it technically is one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vyselink’s rationale. Alternatively, Move to a JW WikiProject subpage as a resource.—Jeffro77 Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about Vyselink's rationale made you change your mind? The reason I'm asking is because you were the who started the first AfD for this back in 2015. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It became evident at the previous AfD 9 years ago that most of the editors in the JW WikiProject group considered the page to be a useful resource. Hence my suggestion at this time to instead move it to a subpage of the WikiProject. Also, do you still have exactly the same opinions about everything as you did 9 years ago?—Jeffro77 Talk 21:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, obviously people can change their opinions over time. I was just curious what exactly made you change your mind since you believed that this page should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR back then. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also said in the previous AfD that the list of publications is available from the JW website. However, the official site omits the existence of some literature (e.g., the elders’ manuals). Additionally, for various reasons, some editors might be reluctant to use the JW official website. But as previously indicated, it may be better as a subpage of the WikiProject.—Jeffro77 Talk 22:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to create subpages at the JW WikiProject, I'm not going to try and stop you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your pointy response runs counter to my suggestion to move the page as a possible option for the AfD. As such, I have created the subpage separately.--Jeffro77 Talk 09:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not trying to be pointy. I didn't say anything initially because an AfD doesn't need to happen for a WikiProject to do its thing but you kept bringing it up so I figured actually saying this would be helpful. I was literally just pointing out that you didn't need my (or anyone else's permission) to do what you wanted to do there. Maybe it would've been less likely to be misconstrued if I had stated I had no objections? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be less likely to be misconstrued if your response was consistent with the fact that I suggested moving the page into the WikiProject namespace as an outcome of the AfD. That is still the preferred option in order to retain the page history. Moving this article into the other namespace is intrinsic to the purpose of the AfD, and necessarily requires ‘permission’ here for it to be done properly.—Jeffro77 Talk 20:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page lists publications of the Watch Tower Society, including materials that predate the existence of Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, that error does not really affect the validity of the nomination.—Jeffro77 Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—On the basis that the nominator has specifically stated that there is no intention to challenge the creation of the subpage in the JW WikiProject as a resource for editors, I would in that case not be opposed to deleting the copy in the article namespace. (However, it is preferable that this page be moved to the other namespace to retain the page history.)—Jeffro77 Talk 13:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, This is a useful list that gives good information and article is well sourced. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Davidgoodheart: You do realize that all of the sources cited in this list are the religion's own publications, right? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and move to something like List of notable Watch Tower Society publications (emphasis added). An inclusion criterion requiring that the publications entered on the list are the subject of acceptable Wikipedia articles instantly transforms the list from a sprawling hodge-podge into something of encyclopedic value. Alumni lists and many other lists prone to indiscriminate growth routinely have this type of inclusion criteria, to the benefit of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does make sense in the context of a page in the article namespace, but it would kind of defeat the purpose of the usefulness of the list as a resource for editors. I have therefore changed my previous '!vote' from 'Keep or move to WikiProject namespace' to only the latter. We already have Jehovah's Witnesses publications for expanded information about notable literature.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice to trimming or reworking. Once we've decided that Watch Tower Society publications are notable, it's an editorial decision whether to list them, and then another editorial decision whether to spin that list out from the main article. I would buy that, if there were only a dozen or so publications, then they would all be listed in the main article. Given that there are many, I don't see a problem with splitting the list off into its own article. I would also be shocked if there weren't plenty of sources which discuss Watch Tower Society publications as a group, which is what's required for NLIST (it doesn't require every item on the list to be included in said groupings). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: I understand your rationale here, but I suppose my other concern is what we should do about Jehovah's Witnesses publications then? Maybe a really really selective merge between the two pages? If we do do that, it'd be useful to be clear what exactly we are merging. Or a redirect? The latter's purpose was intended to be what you describe so it doesn't make sense to have two duplicative lists. As for Watchtower Society publications as a group... secondary sources rarely go into detail. They tend to only mention a small handful of them (typically the The Watchtower, Awake!, Shepherd the Flock of God, and the New World Translation) and not be nearly anything as extensive as this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: I would like to refute what you say here: I would also be shocked if there weren't plenty of sources which discuss Watch Tower Society publications as a group, see Vyselink's comment above. Feel free to try and prove me wrong, but I'm fairly certain about this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The best source I can find dealing with this subject would be this, which expresses a similar sentiment to Knox above in the first few pages and would imply that sources about JW publications as a group don't really exist. This could be used as a source for the handful of publications it mentions, though. These are:
    • The Watchtower and Awake!
    • The Secret to Family Happiness
    • Questions Young People Ask
    • Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses
    • Jehovah's Witnesses: Proclaimers of God's Kingdom
    • Reasoning from the Scriptures
    • Knowledge that Leads to Everlasting Life.
    I think that past this point it's probably best for me to step down and refrain from further discussion. I will respond to any direct inquiries if one wishes to make them but I don't want to discourage further participation from others who may have other arguments. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'd ask how anyone writing in-depth about the beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses would avoid doing a literature review of Watch Tower Society publications, covering many of them as a group? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: People writing in-depth about the Witnesses aren't doing literature reviews as far as I can tell. I've spent a lot of time improving the JW topic area and replacing citations to primary sources with secondary ones. For my work on the Jehovah's Witnesses article itself, this has meant citing George Chryssides repeatedly. He rarely goes beyond reviewing literature outside of the Watchtower and Awake!. Essentially everyone I've ever read who studies the Witnesses takes that approach, occasionally referencing other publications where necessary. But it's always a very small handful and nothing like this list. If I had to guess why, I would say it's because you don't need to look at every JW publication to learn about their beliefs. They're largely duplicative to each other, content-wise. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all the info, Clovermoss (here and on my usertalk). While I'm surprised there aren't more literature reviews of JW publications, it's not something I can see myself doing a deep dive into to properly support my keep !vote in the near future. Content to strike my !vote and defer to what you've found. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am most swayed by Clovermoss's arguments. I considered !voting to move to WP space, but upon further consideration, it seems inappropriate to preserve an index of sources that are pretty much guaranteed to be primary and unreliable for any material they cover. signed, Rosguill talk 16:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. signed, Rosguill talk 15:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteshield[edit]

Whiteshield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like a reasonably successful consulting company, but that doesn't seem to have translated into any coverage of the company in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Announcements of things they did are good and all, but they're not really the type of content that would meet our criteria for inclusion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The page has a decent media coverage, has a general notability, cooperates with governments of various countries and with international organizations (such as the EBRD and UNESCO) thus responding to WP:GNG. Del Amol Banora (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for spamming. MER-C 17:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep new sources added today are good, so the notability and coverage issues are not so strict. Cooperation with UNESCO, the European Bank for Reconstruction and other global institutions might help add more information and sources. --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for spamming. MER-C 17:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page's sources still do not establish notability sufficiently. The references are from relatively minor sources or primary sources. "cooperating with governments of various countries and international organizations" is not in of itself a consideration for noteworthiness. A paperclip company could be said to "cooperate" with international governmental institutions by selling paperclips to them, but that does not make the paperclip company notable. CapnPhantasm (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: I feel like I should clarify a little bit more. The firm's research has been actively used and publicly praised by UNESCO, with their book listed in the references and their chart included in the article. It's important to note that EBRD and UNESCO official websites shouldn't be considered primary sources or "minor". Additionally, some other media mention that the Whiteshield research was commissioned by the UN and the government of Kazakhstan. They are also mentioned on the official websites of UNIDO and UNDP and are quoted in other UN documents.--Del Amol Banora (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Del Amol Banora. Being cited works for Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and, in some very rare cases, the works themselves. It does not work for companies or organisations, the articles of which we require to be based on the independent analysis of reliable secondary sources. There needs to be stuff written by the UN (or any other source with a reputation for fact checking) in sufficient depth on which to actually base an article, for any of us to, well, actually write a policy compliant article. Any source lacking analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas (of the subject of the article) is, by definition in policy, WP:PRIMARY. Any source that has a relationship other than the "actually writing the article" part of things (including, but not limited to vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees) is generally not going to be considered independent by the applicable guidelines. Those independent, secondary sources are required to go into substantial depth in their analysis, which excludes routine announcements of ordinary business activities. ("routine announcements" being the ones that would accompany such activities most of the time) None of the sources available meet all four of the requirements, and believe me, I had looked quite extensively. (though I do not claim it exhaustive) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apart from the casting votes, the subject seems notable and passes WP:ORGCRIT. MeltPees (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for spamming. MER-C 17:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per GNG, added some additional sources, likely passed ORGCRIT --Assirian cat (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Assirian cat, I see the two sources you add mention Whiteshield, in the context of quoting from one of their partners, but I don't see any content about Whiteshield. Can you confirm which of the sources you think provide WP:ORGDEPTH or even WP:SIGCOV? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes outnumber delete views so far, but what exactly is Whiteshield notable for?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 17:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 05:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maicol Azzolini[edit]

Maicol Azzolini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Italian rugby player who fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I found this interview and a couple of transactional announcements (1, 2, 3), but nothing substantial. JTtheOG (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 05:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aida Vee[edit]

Aida Vee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lack of notability. little to no 3rd party articles detailing artist Minmarion (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus that sufficient sources exist to merit keeping the article and that OR and SYNTH issues, while present in the current article, are not insurmountable. Complex/Rational 16:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum weirdness[edit]

Quantum weirdness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODded with the following statement:

Not notable. Only a single reference, a book by this name. Science is the study of things that do no match common sense: "weirdness" is not thing in physics. We have plenty of articles on QM.
— User:Johnjbarton 17:52, 16 March 2024

Then it was deprodded by a user who added a large volume of references that are about quantum mechanics and also have this cliché in the title:

deprod; notability of a topic is not defined by the number of references in the article but by the coverage in multiple independent reliable sources
— User:Lambiam 12:30, 18 March 2024

The actual problem is that the article is just a WP:DICDEF — nothing here shows that there is a distinct concept from QM itself. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – more than any other content policy, every time I try to drill down on what WP:NOTADICT means for the encyclopedia I come up empty. Given that we live in a world of abstracted descriptors, it's very often unclear what boundary there is between term and concept. Is quantum weirdness the same thing as quantum mechanics? No—does the notion of it belong in any single article about quantum mechanics? Probably also no. Is it thereby a distinct concept within the total discourse on quantum mechanics? I do not know. Remsense诉 11:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good example is the article Bare particle, which in its current form is not much more than a definition (and unsourced at that), but this is no reason to seek its deletion.  --Lambiam 09:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I will ignore the issue of whether the science in the article is meaningful, since that does not matter for my vote. This is very much a classic dictionary definition, see the specific description. The current article is just a list without encyclopedic content. To be an article it would have to cite information from numerous secondary sources to establish that this is a real, scientific topic of note. (As you might guess, I don't consider the concept of this article notable or sound science, but we don't need that to decide on deletion.) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. [Disclosure: I am the original article creator.] I do not really understand the arguments for deletion. The term is widely used, also by notable eminent physicists. I created the article (as a stub) because this is a term that is also regularly found in the literature without accompanying explanation, so users might want to look it up to find out more about the concept. Since whole books have been written about this, there is definitely room for expansion, although, if not carefully done, this may lead to unnecessary overlap with existing articles.  --Lambiam 14:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic has coverage by a number of sources. The article being just a definition at this point isn't sufficient for deletion - AfD doesn't exist to establish whether an article needs cleanup or expansion. Cortador (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please note that the following sentence was removed (twice) from the article:
Many "interpretations" of quantum mechanics have been proposed as explanations of such quantum phenomena in a form that is interpretable in terms of everyday, macroscopic experience; none of these has found wide acceptance.
While perhaps not that important, since the same information can be found in the article Interpretations of quantum mechanics listed in the See also section, it should be clear from this (now missing) sentence that this stub covers more than just a dictionary definition.  --Lambiam 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Wishy-washy long neutral comment. This article does not say anything that is not already covered in a range of other existing WP articles on physics. It mostly appears to be some WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. As to quantum being weird, yes, even physicists say this. Anecdote: When I was a young student, my prof pulled me into his office, closed the door, and made me swear a secret oath: I must not talk about quantum to anyone who does not have a formal education in physics. Why? Because quantum is weirder than Hollywood or anything scifi authors could ever imagine, and people's heads would explode, and cranks and snake-oil salesmen would come out of the woodwork. I got the impression this was a standard oath administered to anyone studying physics, dating back to the WWII Manhattan project. Now, if this article was actually about that oath, and/or some sociological study of physicists, I'd be thrilled to vote "keep". But we don't need a compendium of weird stuff. Also p.s. excuse me: most of QM is weird for one reason: because weak convergence (Hilbert space) is fugnuts weird. So this is just math being weird, and not physics. And once you tune in, lots of math is really deranged and weird. Like way more weird than what QM has come up with. (I changed my tag to wishy-washy. I dunno, since everyone is talking about it, anyway, what the heck. Article could mention the U. Columbia prof who dropped his pants for Physics 101 to show how weird QM is. See youtube videos. My ex is a Dean of Students there, we chatted about this. CNN (2013) Columbia professor strips down for lecture) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete: same vote, different explanation. The original article that was AfD'd was just a dictionary definition. It has since been edited adding some highly dubious WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It makes claims about what scientists think which are just not true; most scientists who have worked in the area have no "weirdness" issues. It's math. Slightly different reason to delete, same vote. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it even relevant to the discussion that "most scientists who have worked in the area" have no issues? Some of the most notable ones clearly did have their issues, like Einstein with several aspects of QM, as expressed in his qualification spukhafte Fernwirkungen, and his statement, Die Quantenmechanik ist sehr achtung-gebietend. Aber eine innere Stimme sagt mir, daß das doch nicht der wahre Jakob ist. Die Theorie liefert viel, aber dem Geheimnis des Alten bringt sie uns kaum näher. Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, daß der nicht würfelt. Scientists working in the area are not immune to the limitations of human intuition as shaped by evolution and everyday experience; if they have no issues, it is because they set their intuition aside when doing science. While true and probably sourceable, this is, however, not of direct relevance to the topic of the article.
    The intended article (now still a stub) is not about alternative mathematical formalisms (which are, by the way, not always fully equivalent with vanilla Copenhagen), but about the clash between human intuition and the best available fundamental physical theory. This is an entirely different topic than covered by our "Interpretations" article.
    There are, nevertheless, some connections with the "interpretations" that are worth documenting, since some interpretations of QM were obviously inspired by the desire to interpret some of the weirdness away. In the pilot wave theory there are no cats that are both alive and dead. But it does not imply and cannot explain the Born rule, so it is not mathematically equivalent. The mathematical formulation developed by Hugh Everett III in his PhD thesis is mathematically equivalent. Not so for its popularization as the many-worlds interpretation, which again does away with cats that are simultaneously alive and dead but likewise cannot explain the Born rule. Everett himself considered this transmogrification of his formal mathematical theory "bullshit".[39]  --Lambiam 07:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Interpretations of quantum mechanics which already discusses the non-definition aspects of the article in more detail. Any content that is missing from the redirect target could be merged, but I don't see any. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that this is still a stub, not a fully developed article.  --Lambiam 07:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than a definition, what content would be here that would not be appropriate at Interpretations of quantum mechanics? There are many "interpretations" of quantum mechanics largely because it is "weird". Walsh90210 (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but probably change it entirely? I don't see a reason not to have an article on the book titled Quantum Weirdness, but if the book itself doesn't meet requirements for notability, maybe just Delete. Love, Cassie. (Talk to me!) 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cassie., you are "voting" both Keep and Delete? If you are not certain on Wikipedia's standards for notability, it's best to not participate in an AFD discussion than to give a contradictory opinion that doesn't help a closer assess consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion. I'm familiar with the guidelines, I'm just not familiar with the book. Love, Cassie. (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. Briefly, quantum weirdness is a thing referred to both in scientific publishing (and prepublishing) as well as the science communication press. I don't think the present article does a great job explaining it, but that's a signal it should be improved rather than deleted. Folly Mox (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Draftify. Although the article is not quite ready for mainspace, there is no policy-based reason for deletion either. WP:NOTDIC does not seem to apply, since the article is not written like a dictionary entry. What perhaps irritates the editors is the way it is presented as a fact that quantum mechanics is "weird". In the introduction of Philip Ball's book (cited in the article), 'Quantum weirdness' is actually called a trope, and Ball quite critical of portraying quantum mechanics in this fashion. To achieve a WP:NPOV, this kind of views should be included. This is not an easy subject to write an encyclopedic article about (as opposed to an essay) and draftspace should provide time for that. If, instead of draftifying, there is a consensus to redirect the article somewhere, then I suggest Introduction to quantum mechanics which matches the content of the current article quite well. See the second paragraph in the introduction of that article, and compare the list in Quantum weirdness to the section titles. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was created in Oct 2022 so I think technically it is too late to draftify (WP:AFDTODRAFT). Also, we have a "moving target" page here. The one AfD'd was WP:DICTDEF; that as of 24 May is IMO WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. Of course rules can be broken and the article draftified. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing this out. I've somewhat reluctantly changed my vote to weak keep, as I don't find it completely implausible that an article discussing the alleged counter-intuitiveness of QM could be written from the available sources. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to West Yorkshire derbies#Leeds Rhinos and Wakefield Trinity. There is general agreement that this can serve as a redirect, although there is no consensus as to how much information would be WP:DUE to include there. signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Rhinos–Wakefield Trinity rivalry[edit]

Leeds Rhinos–Wakefield Trinity rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this is a particularly notable rivalry, if it can even be considered one at all. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the festive challenge wasn't always exclusively a Leeds v Wakefield friendly (Leeds have played other opponents in the past: [40] [41]), so that part should definitely be removed or separated into another article. I've no problem with merging the rest with West Yorkshire derbies if others think it's notable enough for inclusion. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transfer information and redirect to West Yorkshire derbies#Leeds Rhinos and Wakefield Trinity Mn1548 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If adequate sources, can be found supporting that the Festive Challenge was once more than Leeds vs Wakefield then this should be created as a new article. Mn1548 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are sources which have the festive challenge first being played in 1996 and mention Halifax, Bradford and Castleford as taking part before Wakefield so a move back to the original page name would be suitable for this section. But I could find very little about Leeds and Wakefield being regarded as rivals and it is not mentioned in lists of derbies: [42]. EdwardUK (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, this rivalry, along with a few others, seems to have just been bolted on to the "West Yorkshire Derby" section of Derbies in the Rugby Football League which from what I can gather, the West Yorkshire Derby is between Leeds and Bradford. Would support a move back to the original page name for Festive Challenge content only with the rest being transferred to the West Yorkshire derbies page, then a clear up of said page for any rivalries that appear to have just been made up. Mn1548 (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the content relating to the Boxing Day friendlies to Festive Challenge. Thanks to @EdwardUK:'s work, I think this is well sourced enough to be kept, so I'm withdrawing my nomination for that part of the article. Now it's just whether the remaining content should be merged or deleted. I personally don't think it's a strong enough rivalry to be included even on the West Yorkshire page. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: To preserve the page history, it would need to be a merge or redirect rather than a delete. If it was merged, I doubt it would be kept following any clean-up of the WY derbies article. The head-to-head needs updating, and I am not sure how relevant the collective honours table is to any rivalry if the teams have never played each other in some of the competitions and Wakefield have never taken part in others. EdwardUK (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft. While it has been asserted by the minority of keep !voters that there are sources that establish GNG, sources that go beyond mere-mentions have not been identified in this discussion, and it seems likely that some coverage of Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft may have been mistaken for coverage of this title, the expanded Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft that is the focus of this discussion. It has been noted that this title is a redirect on de.wiki to the relevant Donaudampf... root article. Between delete, merge and redirect, the discussion focused on whether there has been any mention of this specific variation in RS; such mention has been identified, but there does not appear to be agreement that there is sufficient coverage beyond such a mention to justify merging (of course, editors who find coverage supporting the inclusion of WP:DUE material at the target are welcome to add such material there as a bold edit). signed, Rosguill talk 15:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft[edit]

Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only appears to be mentioned in the context of long German words; I can't find a source which gives significant coverage of this "nonexistent sub-organization of the DDSG" beyond its name being long and funny. As Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY, this might be best saved for Wikitionary or maybe a brief mention on an article about German compound nouns. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. The page's purpose seems more of a gimmick than anything else. Peculiarities of a given language can simply be mentioned in the language's article itself. ArkHyena (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Poorly written, very little evidence of notability or even really its existence as a word. However, the word at least does appear in the Guinness Book of Records 1996 (which can be borrowed via Internet Archive, see [43]), but with the "ä" given as "ae" instead. But they don't tell us where they got the word from, and in any case per WP:RSPSS the Guinness World Records "should not be used to establish notability".
Some other observations of mine here, maybe not relevant to deleting the article itself but may be helpful anyway:
  1. This article was created in 2005, which from what I can tell had lower standards for sourcing or notability than today, unless I'm mistaken? (If it does, that may explain the poor quality of the article as it is now)
  2. The only inline source in use as of writing is from h2g2, a user generated encyclopedia.
  3. Is there even a source for the suborganisation being nonexistent at all? It feels like a lot of this article is possibly original analysis, which would fail WP:OR.
Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as this does not appear to have been an actual organization, but rather a name contrived to be an example of an unusually long German word. However, if this name is mentioned in some other article here on the English Wikipedia such as German nouns#Compounds, it can be redirected to that article. Do not redirect to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft, the actual shipping company with which this supposed organization would have been affiliated if it had actually existed, because people who look up this word (if anybody does) are probably interested in it as a word. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already also covered there, though. SportingFlyer T·C 03:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a made-up word, existing purely as an exceptionally long curiosity, of dictionary value at best (if it even belongs there). It has no place in an encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Kusma if there is sourcing. The Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft has (unsourced) claims of other silly long words derived from its name. But: is there sourcing this ever was a word, other than the Guinness Book of World Records and user-generated content like H2G2? Walsh90210 (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Without proven sourcing, deletion is the right option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I should clarify. My question was on sourcing of The name of the company is well known in German-speaking countries as a starter to humorously construct even longer compound words. Even if this specific word was made-up for the Guinness Book of World Records (which seems plausible), I would support a redirect if there is other sourcing for that statement. It is hard to tell from an English-language Google search whether there is anything other than "people quoting Wikipedia" there. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to search in German, as that's where it's a novelty. It might not qualify for WP:GNG in English, but if you set your compass for German there's coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 03:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In German it is basically a children's game to construct long extensions of Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft. Most made-up extensions are more convincing than this one (no educated native German speaker would use "-elektrizitäten-" instead of the correct "-elektrizitäts-" in this context) so I guess that is why this particular choice of made-up extension is more notable in English (albeit not very notable) than in German. —Kusma (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly meets GNG if you read the German article. Other long compounds of the same origin, such as Donau­dampfschifffahrts­gesellschafts­kapitäns­anwärter­posten, can be redirected to this article. Jonashtand (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect, probably to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft. The Guinness source used on the German Wikipedia is sufficient for verifiability, but not notability. I suggest that the content of this article can be summarised into a single short paragraph in the target article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least support Merge & Redirect to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft. Theoretical word, mostly a joke. German WP includes mention of it as an artificial creation:
    Das Wort ist ein beliebtes Beispiel für komplexe Mehrfachkomposita und deren Probleme im Bereich der Linguistik und Computerlinguistik in Thesauren, Übersetzungsprogrammen und Suchabfragen. In Österreich, wo die Gesellschaft beheimatet war, ist es wahrscheinlich das Paradebeispiel. Es wird gerne als Ausgangspunkt für Wortspielereien wie die Ableitung noch längerer künstlich zusammen­gesetzter – aber grammati­kalisch korrekter – Hauptwörter wie

    Donau­dampfschifffahrts­gesellschafts­kapitäns­anwärter­posten
    Donau­dampfschifffahrts­gesellschafts­kapitäns­kajüten­schlüsselloch
    Donau­dampfschifffahrts­elektrizitäten­hauptbetriebswerk­bauunterbeamten­gesellschaft
    Oberdonaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsmützenkokarde

    und ähnlichem genutzt.      Mr.choppers | ✎  17:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. given sources added. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Csaba Gál[edit]

Csaba Gál (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject should have at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of it, excluding database sources. Lacks references. Shinadamina (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I have added the rationale now.Shinadamina (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two GNG passing sources in foreign language Wikipedia. I imagine there will be sourcing offline also, given he won well over 80 caps for his nation and appeared in 3 World Cups. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Ninoy Aquino International Airport#Ground transport. Liz Read! Talk! 03:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NAIA Road[edit]

NAIA Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GEOROAD. The guideline states: "Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject." The only two sources used here do not support the article: from DPWH (non-independent) and from the Philippine Star (does not mention NAIA or MIA Road even once, only references the proposed rehabilitation of the airport that gave the road its name). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for news sources on Google is of no help too:

  1. 2014 Pilipino Star Ngayon article: only mentions about the road as one of the areas of frequent cutting-trip actions by jeepney during 2010s. Less weight on the roads, more weight on the behavior of jeepneu and tricycle drivers and their impacts to the commuters.
  2. 2018 Pilipino Star Ngayon article: mainly talks about Puliscredibles film as an entry of the Metro Manila Film Festival, with the road being mentioned once as part of the parade float's route.
  3. 2019 Philippine News Agency article: "NCRPO director, Maj. Gen. Guillermo Eleazar said joint operatives of the Bureau of Immigration (BI), NCRPO's Regional Special Operations Unit (RSOU) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines in coordination with the Chinese embassy, swooped down on the Golden Unicom Technology, Inc. 7th Floor, Millennium Building on NAIA Road on Wednesday night." (Brief "cameo appearance" of the road in the article as the address of the incriminated Chinese-operated establishment). This is also the same case as the Inquirer article of the same news.
  4. 2018 photo essay article of the Philippine News Agency: not strong enough to provide GEOROAD compliance of "NAIA Road" article. Also the case for this 2022 photo article of the same news outlet.
  5. 2015 Philippine Daily Inquirer online article: only about a traffic rerouting advisory with NAIA Road as among the roads mentioned once.
  6. 2024 tabloid story of Remate: only about a crime incident that occurred along the road.
  7. 2023 GMA News article: only mentions a severe traffic congestion along the road as a result of a nearby fire
  8. 2016 article of Philippine Primer: mostly about NAIA Expressway with a single, fleeting mention of NAIA Road: "In a report published by Business Mirror, the newly completed NAIA Expressway’s Phase 2-B, link from NAIA Road to NAIA Terminal 3, Villamor and the Skyway System, will be toll-free. This will be from Decemeber 21, 2016 to Jan. 10, 2017, a representative from the Department of Transportation said."
  9. 2018 Philippine Star article: only mentions the road as where a tricycle driver disgusing as a law enforcer was arrested.
  10. 2015 Philippine Daily Inquirer online article: only mentions the road as among addresses impacted by a temporary power interruption.
  11. 2014 GMA News article: more on the damaged electric pole than the road itself (where it is located).

The rest of the sources, includes some foreign sources about unrelated matter (from Malta et cetera), strangely. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zobel Roxas Street[edit]

Zobel Roxas Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to pass WP:GEOROAD guideline which states: "Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject."

The four existing sources here do not support the article: both the DPWH sources are non-independent since the DPWH is the government agency that maintains and manages the national roads like Zobel Roxas Street (see WP:INDEPENDENT). The third source is from a real estate company, but the current "About us" page does not state the origins of the road (failed verification). The fourth citation is a vintage US-published map, and it is uncertain if it can be used as a reliable source for the history of the road.

A brief search on news content on Google does not give fruitful results. The only reliable source is an old news about a fire that hit a commercial building along the street; the rest of the news search results are mostly hotel sites, travel sites, social media advertisements of establishments found along the road, and other obviously unreliable and unencyclopedic sources. All in all, "Zobel Roxas Street" is not notable per GEOROAD. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Silvestri[edit]

Max Silvestri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable - no significant coverage of the subject and possibly promotional Pprsmv (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, United States of America, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not a strong keep, but there appears to be sufficient notability - The sources in the article currently are not useful due to being interviews or dead links, but there are some reviews of his work that can be found with minimal effort that tend to indicate notability (Exclaim, The Diamondback, Vulture) - There are also interviews, Q&As and other sources, but generally they are not as strong as the 3 reviews above to establish notoriety. Shazback (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. None of the sources in the article meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, the above sources, one may meet SIGCOV. Source eval:
Comments Source
Appears to be part of a database of actors, questionable SIGCOV https://exclaim.ca/comedy/article/max_silvestri-jfl42_the_garrison_toronto_on_september_26
Promo, "people to watch" type article https://dbknews.com/0999/12/31/arc-lvfrh6zdvvdzjmqjjc3mgs7o3a/
Promo, "people to watch" type article https://www.vulture.com/2014/12/11-best-stand-up-specials-of-2014.html
Ping me if other sources with SIGCOV are found.  // Timothy :: talk  13:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:SIRS is the correct standard for evaluating these sources, since the article is not about an organization or company.
I'm surprised that a review of his show by Exclaim! doesn't attain SIGCOV. Exclaim! is recognized as a perennial source by WikiProject Albums since 2009, a view which was supported on the Reliable Sources discussion board as recently as 2020 [45]. The article is by a staff author, not an external contributor, and is well over the WP:100WORDS guideline, even after excluding the paragraph talking about the opening act.
Regarding the other two articles, what makes them WP:PRSOURCE ("promos") or on what basis are "people to watch" type articles excluded? As far as I can see, the Vulture article is not identified as a press release, does not appear to be churnalism (I can't find an article with similar wording) and is identified as being written by a staff author. It's short, but as Vulture is a perennial source [46] I am surprised 100+ words is so easily dismissed. The Diamondback article does not appear to be churnalism, but as it's a less reputable source & authorship is less clear (DBK Admin, incoherent publication date) I understand this one is more open for discussion.
I haven't been involved in many AfDs, so more information on these topics would be useful for me going forwards. Shazback (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd be interested in seeing another review of the sources in the article and this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I don't see any merge target, and I don't see sufficient direct detailing coverage demonstrated by reliable sources applied, presented, or found which put this subject past ANYBIO, GNG or ENTERTAINER. BusterD (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gasable[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gasable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little indication of notability. The Jordan Times reference reads more like an ad and comes from a source of questionable reliability, and the second source only mentions it in passing. I could find an article by the UN environment programme [47], but I don't think that comes anywhere close to establishing notability. OzzyOlly (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Jordan. OzzyOlly (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article about an e-business app, unchanged since it was restored at request of the article creator after a previous AfD soft deletion. Since the previous AfD, the company appears to have moved its base and broadened its operation. An article here describes the company's change in personnel / location, but this still appears to be coverage promoting a niche startup; I am not seeing the depth of coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AllyD. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Loock[edit]

Wilhelm Loock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WLNN-CD[edit]

WLNN-CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of South Africa national rugby sevens players. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Minnaar[edit]

Chase Minnaar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to KT Corporation. — CactusWriter (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Telecommunications Limited[edit]

Epsilon Telecommunications Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As with many regional B2B companies, this one does not appear to meet the WP:NCORP standards of notability. While there are a lot of sources, they are almost exclusively to WP:TRADES that do not help establish notability. Moreover, virtually all of the coverage is of the WP:ORGTRIV variety (hirings, market expansions, product offerings, acquisitions, etc.), or they are Q&A interviews and thus primary sources. A WP:BEFORE search found that the author has put just about every available source into this story and even then it doesn't come close to NCORP. As a result, I propose to merge any encyclopedic content into KT Corporation, Epsilon's parent. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axtell High School (Nebraska)[edit]

Axtell High School (Nebraska) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not actually Axtell High School, as near as I can tell, but Axtell Community School. There is an actual school that is a combination of junior high and high school in Axtell. It's at a different address. See here. In any event, the article is a nothing, consisting of one sentence that says it's a school. If the community decide for some reason to retain the article, the name needs to be corrected, and I'm not sure about the data in the infobox. Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this seems like a hoax. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As Bbb23 said, this is a real school in Axtell, NE, but it is a PK-12 school known as "Axtell Community School". I wouldn't say this is a hoax, since it cites a government source that incorrectly refers to it as "Axtell High School". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_May_20&oldid=1226402821"