Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 09 May 11 >

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 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 03:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Aishah[edit]

Lara Aishah (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)

Couldn't find any sources for this show, there are none in the article right now. Niafied (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 11 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girls' Brigade Singapore[edit]

Girls' Brigade Singapore (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 notability guidelines for organizations; the only source in the article is a primary source connected to the organization. Additionally, I don't think this is in-depth coverage we're looking to estabilsh notability! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:36, 4 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! 02:34, 11 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. Deletion on the basis of consensus in so small a field might be doubtful, but the fact that the article also qualifies for speedy deletion as created by a block-evading editor (using both an account & IP editing), and arguably also as promotional removes any doubt. JBW (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somali Inside News[edit]

Somali Inside News (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 notability upon WP:BEFORE. Doesn't meet GNG or NME 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 13:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We really need a lot more editors participating in AFD discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nomination, this fails WP:NME and WP:GNG as there are no secondary, reliables sources available. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:00, 11 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Musharraf Ali Farooqi[edit]

Musharraf Ali Farooqi (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 clear case of WP:AUTOBIO. None of the subject's work appears outstanding, which means he fails to meet WP:AUTHOR. Additionally, there is a lack of significant coverage in WP:RS, further failing to meet the basic WP:GNG. Moreover, the BLP seems overly promotional and is written by SPAs Urdulibrary (talk · contribs) Hammad.anwar (talk · contribs) Sibyl12drip (talk · contribs) —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, including the addition of reliable citations. However, a quick search in the Wikipedia Library turned out a ton of reliable citations proving this author's notability. This includes reviews in places like Publishers Weekly (link 1 and 2), Kirkus (link) and many other places. The subject also has an entry in Baker & Taylor Author Biographies. All in all, easily meets Wikipedia's author notability standards. --SouthernNights (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it true that WP:N are based on the WP:GNG, which require significant in-depth coverage about the subject? I haven't been able to find such coverage so far. Additionally, if we're considering WP:AUTHOR, it requires the subject's work to be noteworthy. However, none of the subject's works are even mentioned on WP. So, how can we assume they're not noteworthy solely based on some WP:ROTM coverage and reviews. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for WP:Author states "Such a person is notable if ... The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Nothing in that criteria states that the work itself must be represented on Wikipedia. Also, WP:GNG are the general notability guidelines while the guidelines for creative professionals give additional guidance. If a subject meets any of the criteria within any of the notability guidelines, they are assumed to be notable. SouthernNights (talk) 21:21, 5 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! 02:28, 11 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 03:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Road signs in Brunei[edit]

Road signs in Brunei (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)

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road signs in Lesotho. It's a WP:NOTGALLERY violation apparently by intention. There are tons of these articles that don't appear to be attempts at creating an encyclopedia article at all, but are just making a space to put 100+ images. There's already a place for that, and it's on Commons. GMGtalk 10:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All seem to be on commons:Category:SVG road signs in Brunei, and the one source on the page doesn't seem to support the cited information. CMD (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Part of a bundled AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this collection of images. There are other places for it. Try Wikimedia Commons. The article itself lacks substance. It is barely sourced, and what it does have is questionable. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:18, 16 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 Czech First League#Media coverage. Liz Read! Talk! 02:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Czech First League broadcasters[edit]

List of Czech First League broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, not a single source. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. How do "Delete" voters think about the possibility of a Redirect or Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 11 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! 21:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anurag Sinha[edit]

Anurag Sinha (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 initially tagged this for UPE for cleanup but after it was challenged by two SPAs, and at the request of one, I dug further into cleanup. The issue is that the references, other than this, are not reliable to show notability. Everything is mentions, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, press releases, churnalism, interviews, or otherwise unreliable. I removed some WP:FAKEREFerences prior but kept everything else in tact so the AfD could be judged based on how it sits currently. CNMall41 (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41
I think you are indulging in provocation to prove you’re correct. Please refer this case to senior editors and administrators for opinion. My knowledge about Wikipedia rules is limited. However this nomination for deletion seems fishy. Hope fellow editors will objectively contribute to sort this, whatever is right.
Request to refer to the Talk Page of Anurag Sinha to understand the case. His notability and credibility is vouched and acknowledged.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixing001 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fixing001, Don't worry this ADF discussion will surely closed by an Administrator of Wikipedia. Grabup (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @CNMall41
I would really like to contest your decision to provocatively send the article for deletion, while I was engaging in a meaningful conversation with you in the talk page. I will also request the inclusion of other editors and administrators to have a look at this case as I feel that this step may have been influenced due to reasons while this could have been avoided certainly for an actor who has a valid presence and calibre in the indian films industry.
Please have a look at the references right from 2008 till 2023 where these references are attributed from TOI, Press Trust of India, ANI News, NDTV, Organisational bodies, Etimes, Recognised Production Houses and International Film Festivals, Directors and fellow actors from the industry of India.
While some citations may come from a list of as you call “Paid Media”, there is a plethora of other google search articles and references in the article where the subject is not in ‘Mentionary terms’, but actuality a major point of interest.
Articles by reputed journalists of India, like Mr Subhash K Jha, Mr Khalid Mohammad and other prominent journalists have done interviews and wrote articles on ‘Anurag Sinha’. His recent Best Actor Award in International Film Festivals is also merited by TOI and PTI, ANI News, The Week, Zee5 News etc.
While, you discredited the article and the subject 2 months earlier accusing of Paid Creation, why did you not send it for deletion then itself when proper cleaning of language and any inkling of promotional intent was also removed by myself.
I had only requested you remove the “paid template” and present any transactional proof made by the user/article subject for creating the page, to which there is still no evidence provided by you. You have stated the ‘creator of the page’ has been flagged, but that does not mean that all articles created by the creator are false and paid, when the merit of this particular artist/actor is recognised by a mass audience and people of his industry.
However, I again repeat that today seems out of hasty decision, you have altered the article by your edits which are not justified. This article is on my watchlist and some removals are uncalled and was not needed at all. While you also have wrongly exercised your rights to put templates and send the page for deletion. Why?
Also, for clarification of my interest in the article, I certainly am interested in the work of actors and indian film industry and will want to contribute positively towards it.
As a responsible Wikipedia editor, I again would address you to clean the page, if you find it dissatisfying. According to me, all current references are reliable third part sources that are not just mentioning, but are talking about the subject or acknowledging the achievements of the subject.
I trust this process and hopefully this matter will be justly resolved. I will also invite other editors and experienced editors to engage in its resolution.
Thanks Fixing001 (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article must be uploaded back and edited with supervision. The article subject is legit. DSTR123 (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that DSTR123 and Fixing001 might be the same individual, given that the DSTR123 account was created today following this nomination and has only posted this comment thus far. Grabup (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup:, They likely are. SPI filed here. I believe the image uploads are a pretty good trail of breadcrumbs. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Based on my checking, I've discovered that sources are only WP:NEWSORGINDIA and press releases, sponsored articles, and interview pieces can't establish notability at all. The individual clearly doesn't meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG due to a lack of comprehensive coverage on the subject. Grabup (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’’Keep’’’ - The article subject has a 16year career where he has recently won Best Actor Awards in his field at International Film Festivals in New Jersey and Toronto. The notability can’t be debated with the individual being working with premium indian production houses like Mukta Arts, Emmay Entertainment, Applause Entertainment, T Series etc in leading roles with directors and co-stars who are also having a sterling background.. like Subhash Ghai, Anil Kapoor, Nikkhil Advani, Shefali Shah, Purab Kohli etc. The article references are cited from the premier news agencies of indian media viz..Times of India, HT, Rediff, The Week, Press Trust of India, ANI News, NDTV, Money Control, The Print etc. Mostly all the articles in India media are cited with references from the above agencies, if that’s the case, we may need to delete every article in Indian Films section.

This article must be added with citations available in the public domain and be made available. It’s a KEEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixing001 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC) struck sock vote --CNMall41 (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - There is enough information on public domain for the credibility of the actor. The article needs more citations. Not all artist must have a comprehensive coverage, consistent qualitative work over a sustained period with accreditation from international film festivals and other platforms must be taken in account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40E5:1041:EA04:B517:90B9:EDEE:D31E (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with various significant roles in notable productions (one for which he was nominated for a FF award; another that received minor awards; which also contributes to prove the roles were significant); his role in P.O.W. – Bandi Yuddh Ke can also be considered significant. So, at least 3. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As with other AfD's I have requested this, can you show me the specific references that show notability? Simply having "various significant roles in notable productions" does not grant notability, it only says they "may be considered notable." --CNMall41 (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Here are just some of the articles that are published where the actor is talked and discussed in a positive prominent light and not merely in mentionary terms. This merely are a few articles from only one of the indian publications, Times of India, TOI Entertainment.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/kill-terrorism-not-the-terroristshubash/articleshow/2849557.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anurag-in-black-and-white/articleshow/2917175.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/genres-dont-matter-says-anurag/articleshow/3184943.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/i-think-i-can-handle-the-curiosityanurag/articleshow/2864389.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/actor-anurag-sinha-to-marry-on-nov-19/articleshow/5156245.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anurag-sinha-wins-best-actor-award-feature-for-shadow-assassins-at-alternative-film-festival-toronto-altff-2023/articleshow/104649337.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/subhash-ghai-feels-inspired/articleshow/3973118.cms?_gl


https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/star-plus-p-o-w-bandi-yuddh-ke-gets-3-new-faces/articleshow/56625506.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anil-is-jealous/articleshow/2787866.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/another-honour-for-subhash-ghai/articleshow/3900541.cms?_gl


Again, all this issue of notability was only brought by the editor who flagged the article, when was requested on the Talk page to remove the paid templates as there was no citation of proof for payment by the artist in discussion for a period of two months or so. I still am not clear why is it happening here, where the article on this actor in discussion can easily be expanded with reliable reference and citations that are available on the public domain.

My perspective - The India media is suffering with the malady of copying and publishing information from one source to another and is suffocating genuine talents and films with the issue of paid marketing and publicity. If Wikipedia doesn’t provide a platform like its own of credible acknowledgement to authentic artists/talents, soon must find it surfeit with articles on Arts & Entertainment , that are already influenced and published under bias and discreet funding from production houses. Why are we not calling out the ones overtly known ? As for this article, this feels like a pitiful hassling over an unjust removal of a credible and relevant indian talent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Centrepiece12 (talk • contribs) struck sock vote Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Times of India is totally not reliable when it comes to BLP. They are known for their paid editing and promotional material. See WP:TOI and WP:RSN archives. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I went through all the sources cited in the article. Can't find any that satisfy reliability + independence + significant coverage. Most of the sources are about the movies the subject played a role in, with trivial mentions of him interspersed. I doubt the notability of the movies too, These are sponsored stories [1][2]. This is an interview. So not WP:IS. Alternative Film Festival best actor is not a significant award or honor. The article is just deliberate and malicious refbombing. — hako9 (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep- The article must be reassessed. The references are from the most read publication of India, TOI. Barring a few, the references are credible enough to abide by WP:NACTOR. The actor has worked as protagonists in films that have been notably popular. The present article is acceptably consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40d2:103a:b4e6:2d76:969:3718:41d3 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'm not sure about determining consensus as I see editors I respect on both sides of this debate along with a lot of IPs and newcomers. Can we get an essential THREE that can be agreed upon instead of posting dozens of links to bad quality sources? Also editors are advised they need to sign all of their comments with their signatures.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't know where all the "keep" votes are coming from. Anyways, not enough reliable sourcing to establish notability, and there is possible paid editing. HarukaAmaranth 春香 12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poor and unreliable sources. The actor's work has not been significant and unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. RangersRus (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The actor has been honoured with Best Actor awards at Film Festivals and nominated for best actor award at Filmfare, India. Sources as checked are abiding to WP:SIGCOV with sources being secondary and abiding by independence of the subject.References are found to be consistent.References that are not paid and independent sources.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anurag-sinha-wins-best-actor-award-feature-for-shadow-assassins-at-alternative-film-festival-toronto-altff-2023/amp_articleshow/104649337.cms

https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/bollywood/story/anurag-sinha-not-big-b-to-play-sarabjit-in-subhash-ghais-next-215349-2013-10-23

https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/striking-it-hot-with-black-and-white/story-snmGGlHB2ytv86PqxNxauN.html

https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/story/entertainment/anurag-sinha-marry-girlfriend-nov-2568467

https://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/subhash-ghai-s-sarabjit-biopic-to-have-newbie-anurag-sinha-as-lead/story-WyHBMQcK21qJf8zcb0mstL_amp.html

https://www.ndtv.com/entertainment/anurag-sinha-to-play-sarabjit-in-subhash-ghais-next-614525/amp/1


The article can be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40E4:1047:11C:F8F7:A83:EA0A:22DF (talk)

Same person with a similar IP address rang is repeatedly commenting and voting to Keep the article. The sources provided only offer passing mentions and lack in-depth coverage of the subject. The Times of India is considered unreliable for establishing notability. Probably sockpuppet of @Fixing001. Grabup (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not significant coverage. And read WP:SYNDICATED before posting gazillion sources that are from IANS churnalism. — hako9 (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is satisfactorily credible and seems factual to the achievements of the actor. The actor has worked in lead roles in successful Indian films and shows with respectable directors and production houses. Confirms to WP:NPACTOR WP:GNG. Many of the references are reliable and credible sources of information in the Indian media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40C4:101D:80A8:8000:0:0:0 (talk • contribs)
Again, vote from the same IP range, with the same type of comment, and without providing any sources. This AfD is being targeted by the creator or a team who were paid to retain the article, or the subject himself is doing this. These IP votes should be avoided. GrabUp - Talk 13:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found similar, listings, name mentions, promo, nothing that meets WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong independent reliable sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  12:47, 16 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paulin Basinga[edit]

Paulin Basinga (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)

Appears PROMO. I don't see articles about this individual, only interviews or use of him as an expert on xyz health topic in various media. Odd that all sourcing here is from Nigeria, but none in the home country, possible "pay to publish" as we see typically in Nigerian media. I have my concerns, bringing ti AfD to discuss. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose!
In the beginning, I read about him and his works. For clarification, it may seem to be promo but factually it is not.
In facts, connectively, I read that in the home country he was a university lecturer, researcher and consultant. These can be limits to his articles other than interviews or use of him as an expert. But I considered it notable because he featured on international articles including those of World Bank and BMGF. It is referenced that later on, he has featured on other institutions such as Global Citizen and UGHE.
I do not see any problem with sources from Nigeria because based on reliable sources, it shows that his work in leadership role at BMGF were about Africa and the biggest office there was in Nigeria.
However, If we test him in Rwanda, below are some articles about him but there are in Kinyarwanda;
Thanks. 6eeWikiUser (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oaktree b, a drive-by comment: are you insinuating that "pay-to-publish" determines the nature of Nigeria media. I can't see much coverage if not two from Nigerian source. Don't you think it's below the belt?
    Back to deletion discussion! — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure, we see it all too often here in AfD; Nigerian and Indian media seem to have a history of publishing iffy articles on people with no relation to the country. When I see an article that's only sourced to Nigerian media when the subject doesn't have a connection to the country (or a partial connection), it's a red flag. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never knew the story about Nigerian and Indian media, and I think we should not easily globalize because from this subject, mathematically, the sources from Nigerian media are less than 30%. 6eeWikiUser (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is sufficient coverage, and it does not matter which country's media covers it (or the language) as long as the refs ares reliable and verifiable, and there is sufficient coverage that meets our notability guidelines, and merits a stand-alone article, which this article does. Generalising and casting aspersions on a developing country's media is most unhelpful, and is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, and its goal in fighting against Wikipedia:Systemic bias. We do not know whether subject paid for it or not, and without facts, we should be mindful of casting aspersions on the credibility of others. It it is most unhelpful, and I hope the nom strike out that comment in their nomination and the response to Safari Scribe. I totally agree with Safari Scribe. It is unwarranted and below the belt.Tamsier (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I have no confidence about a consensus here. Critiquing media from specific countries needn't be a slam against a nationality, just a comment on the prevalence of paid/sponsored journalism is particular countries. I know we have list of Indian sources that don't meet Wikipedia standards for independence and editorial rigor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete heavily refbombed with sources which are interviews, or not independent, or passing mentions. The subject has a very successful career but that is not sufficient basis for an encyclopedia article. Mccapra (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @Mccapra. In above replies I mentioned that while creating the page I read that more time of his career he was a university lecturer, researcher and consultant this means those positions could be limits to his articles other than interviews or use of him as an expert. I considered his interviews strong because he was advising in notable and reliable magazines and talking about broad topics including deadliest diseases like Ebola, HIV and Polio among others. However, he has some sources which are not added, if inserting them now can make it any better be kind enough to let me know. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sourcing is consistent with the pay-to-publish promotional content seen in Nigerian media. Not seeing GNG here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @JoelleJay, all the content seen in Nigerian media are from notable magazines including The Guardian (Nigeria), Premium Times, and The Nation (Nigeria). While reading Wikipedia notability guidelines I understood that it does not matter which country's media covers it (or the language) as long as the refs are reliable and verifiable. Why are you not seeing GNG here? 12eeWikiUser (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sourcing is unimpressive but, more importantly, it does not establish notability. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Greetings,
    It will be somehow hard for me to understand that subject is not notable while all source providers I used (18) have Wikipedia pages, please check starting from Evans School of Public Policy and Governance up to Guttmacher Institute. Otherwise, what is notability? 12eeWikiUser (talk) 06:19, 18 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! 23:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge Cup semi final[edit]

Challenge Cup semi final (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)

Apparently I have to use AfD for this: I think this article should be moved to draftspace as it as the potential to be a good article similar to FA Cup semi-finals. However it is currently incomplete, unreferenced, and is not fit for the mainspace. Mn1548 (talk) 15:31, 26 April 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 April 26. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 15:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby league, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This page has been unreferenced since its creation in 2016. It's more likely that, if sent to draft space, it ends up being G13 deleted in 6 months time anyways. I'd prefer the matter of this get addressed here instead of being draftified and deleted in 6 months. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a fair point. Another user has suggested deletion in a previous discussion. My preference is to move article to draft but I'm also not opposed to deletion as article can always be remade at a later date. My main issue with the article currently is not that it is unreferenced but rather is is incomplete in the sense that the list is missing everything from 1898 to 1979. Mn1548 (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Semi finals are not notable enough for a stand-alone article. I PROD'd this a while ago, but it was contested with an WP:OSE argument (i.e. FA Cup semi-finals exists, so this article should too). Even if the article were improved, I'm not convinced it is notable enough to pass WP:LISTN. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with this point. While I think this article could be made to the standard of the FA Cup article, the reality is football will always have more coverage than rugby league, so finding enough secondary sources might be problematic for it to pass as a stand alone list. Mn1548 (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. But the nominator is suggesting draftification, is that option acceptable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once again, this AFD needs more participation from editors, weighing in with their assessments of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this sourceless set of tables with nearly no content to the actual article and no indication of notability for these particular semi finals. Wikipedia is not the place for indiscriminate lists or trivia. A good draftify argument might persuade me, but right now I see nothing to gain by sending it to draft space. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:21, 16 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 count two delete !votes - one from the nominator and one from Mn1548 ("if references can't be found...") - which I count as "delete" on the basis the nomination has been open for two weeks with no new references being added. No arguments in favour of keeping. We'd prefer more involvement but 2 weeks is long enough and the decision from those who contributed seems unanimous. WaggersTALK 14:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Holker[edit]

Steven Holker (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, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were transactional announcements (1, 2, 3) and this confirms he was out of the sport by 2016. JTtheOG (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided: Should be expanded as a Super League player, but if refererences can't be found then there is insufficient coverage to keep the article. Mn1548 (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll be a little blunt here but "neutral" or "undecided" comments don't help closers come to a closure decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 11 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! 22:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shravan Kushwaha[edit]

Shravan Kushwaha (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. Being a candidate in the imminent general election isn't a pass for WP:NPOL. Getting his wife elected to whatever position isn't a pass either. Subject was never elected for any political position and the general election is yet to happen. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bihar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mukhia is a constitutional post in India. This is head of local government and this person has serves in this office for years and now aiming for higher office. We have Ritu Jaiswal who also remained mukhia. So I don't think it violates any policy.Admantine123 (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Admantine123 No, local government heads are not considered inherently notable under WP:NPOL regardless of how many years they spent serving, AFAIK. So, that doesn’t count for this subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He doesn't seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources per GNG. According to WP:NPOL, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". I think this says it all! The sources cited don't even give enough proof of notability. They only give a mere "trivial" mention of his candidacy. That's clearly not enough! ZyphorianNexus (talk) 01:06, 5 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! 00:23, 11 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 03:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjiv Ahuja[edit]

Sanjiv Ahuja (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)

Questionable notability and lack of sustained coverage with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 22:44, 3 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! 23:13, 10 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 03:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Inje and Qalaburun[edit]

Battles of Inje and Qalaburun (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)

One of many poorly created articles translated from the Azeri Wikipedia (for more details, see [3]).

Nothing comes up when searching "Battles of Inje and Qalaburun", which makes me fail to see how it meets the notable criteria. And the most cited sources here (5 out of 6 citations) is by a genocide denier [4] Jamil Hasanli, who is also closely connected to the Aliyev-ruled Azerbaijani government, notorious for its historical negationism/revisionism [5] [6] [7] and anti-Iranian sentiments [8], which is not really ideal for an article about the history of Iran. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:20, 3 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! 23:12, 10 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Vivian D'Costa[edit]

Albert Vivian D'Costa (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)

Completely unsourced article which fails WP:NBIO. Redirect to List of people from Goa as an WP:ATD since subject is mentioned there. CycloneYoris talk! 21:37, 10 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 S.T.D (Shelters to Deltas). Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best Dick Sucker[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Best Dick Sucker (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:NSINGLE due to no significant coverage. The album may be notable, but there is no significant coverage of this single in reviews, only passing mentions. Pilaz (talk) 21:23, 10 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.

This page title was originally a Redirect, it wouldn't be out of line to reestablish that Redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aapla Alpha Awards[edit]

Aapla Alpha Awards (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. Redirect disputed by IP. Cannot find sources to show how this meets notability. CNMall41 (talk) 21:15, 3 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! 21:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG. Source in the article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS, found promo, listings, etc, nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Material in article is mainly unsourced, shouldn't be merged.  // Timothy :: talk  15:23, 12 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. This has already been relisted twice. Editors have weighed in with comments but not !votes. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Securian Canada[edit]

Securian Canada (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)

The subsidiary doesn't seem notable. This page can be a redirect to Securian Financial Group. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are separate business entities with separate governance structures from what I can tell and have reference on the Government of Canada website when I was digging around for references. While they share a name, I don't think the connection is that strong beyond that, seems like a worthwhile distinction for people who want to recognize the two entities especially when they have separate reputations (Securian Canada for example has poor reviews vs US which seems to be neutral). Brendanphilp (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And I used to work for them, so I'll avoid this discussion. But yes, most of this is correct, they did insurance for Sears Canada, Hudson's Bay and Capital One (credit insurance and direct marketing items). Used to be the direct marketing division of JC Penney, then it was sold to Aegon, then sold again. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Coverage here [9] and here [10]. Then here [ https://www.dmnews.com/penney-sells-dm-services-to-aegon/]. The article now seems to gloss over most of their history, which was "colourful" to be generous. A proper article on the company here should at least include the JC Penney and Aegon history. I've poked around the Canadian company's website, they're the subsidiary of the US Securian; they also tend to gloss over that for the same reasons I've outlined. They sell insurance using non-traditional methods (again, I'm trying to be diplomatic, but it seems to be about the same quality as when I was there in the JC Penney days), and even then, it was direct marketing/telemarketing, with all the "fun" that comes with that. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, I think the JC Penney references are worth including if that's the case. I think maybe the tactics they use should be omitted unless we can reference that somehow like a newspaper article etc. I'll have a poke around again if there's anything I can reference around that but I didn't see anything on the first pass for including as a "controversy" section so to speak. Brendanphilp (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So I've dug into it a bit over my morning coffee, it looks like maybe we're confusing two entities. What I can find here is Securian Canada used to be Canadian Premier Life, not JC Penney or Aegon. I did find this: https://www.advisor.ca/industry-news/industry/cpp-owned-wilton-re-buys-transamericas-canadian-business/ which has a same parent company that was purchased but they look like two separate entities in that deal. Maybe still worth referencing. Brendanphilp (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:12, 3 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! 21:19, 10 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. Owen× ☎ 20:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of college sports team nicknames in North America[edit]

List of college sports team nicknames in North America (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 grouping that fails to meet the WP:NLIST due to a lack of WP:RS. Let'srun (talk) 14:19, 3 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! 21:16, 10 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 03:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalifa Gul Nawaz Teaching Hospital[edit]

Khalifa Gul Nawaz Teaching Hospital (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)

The press coverage received lacked depth or significance, failing to meet the WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:24, 3 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! 21:15, 10 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! 22:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dewald Donald[edit]

Dewald Donald (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. All I found was a transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 20:35, 10 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lake County Hotel[edit]

Lake County Hotel (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 business/hotel. This former family-run hotel business doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. And the building from which it operated doesn't meet WP:NBUILDING. In terms of the business, in order to establish even the most basic facts about the subject, we are reliant on business registration records, classifieds in local newspapers, death records and funeral notices, small regional adverts, planning notices and the most trivial of passing mentions in wedding announcements. Each of a type that we would find (and likely, frankly, exceed) for just about ANY such business. Indicating that SIGCOV is not met. In terms of the building, while it (and some of the other neighbouring buildings) are subject to some recognition/protection, the building has not been the subject of "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources" (as expected by WP:NBUILD). Or for "which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available" (as expected by WP:GEOFEAT). Even if the building were notable (and I don't see that it is), it is currently occupied by a franchise of a coffee chain. If the building were notable (and I do not see that it is), that notability wouldn't be "inherited" by any of the businesses operating within it (whether a small family hotel or a coffee chain franchisee or a short-lived sports shop or whatever). I do not see how a redirect (to Mullingar#Tourism or List of hotels in Ireland) or similar WP:ATD would be reasonable, proportional or appropriate... Guliolopez (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I found a book that has one to two sentences about the hotel on each of several pages:
    1. Illingworth, Ruth (2008). Images of Mullingar. Dublin: Nonsuch. The History Press. pp. 43, 49, 127, 176–177, 188. Retrieved 2024-05-13 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes on page 43: "In the early 1950s, some Mullingar men went to Canada to mine uranium on the edges of the Arctic Circle. Those who returned to Ireland would later start local businesses such as The Yukon Bar and the Lake County Hotel with the money they earned in the mines."

      The book notes on page 49: "It was the era of the showbands and of disco, and Mullingar people could see and hear their favourite stars in venues such as the Lake County Hotel, the Horizon Ballroom, the County Hall and Larry Caffrey's singing lounge."

      The book notes on page 127: "Bands played weekly in venues such as the County Hall, the Lake County Hotel and The Lakeland (later Horizon) Ballroom."

      The book notes on pages 176–177: "Across the road from Shaw's (now Fagan's Office Supplies), is the Lake County Hotel, opened in 1962 by Paddy Fagan, who had made his money in Canada. The Lake County became one of Mulligan's top entertainment venues."

      The book notes on an image caption on page 188: "Fine Gael politicians in the Lake County Hotel in 196s. From left to right: Gerry LEstrange TD, James Dillon TD, Charlie Fagan, Sean McEoin, Liam Cosgrave TD." The book notes on another image caption on page 188: "Jack Lynch, then Taoiseach, in the Lake County Hotel in 1972 with proprietor Paddy Fagan and local Fianna Fáil councillors Joe Feely and Sean Keegan."

    I am not seeing enough in my searches for sources to allow Lake County Hotel to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria.

    Cunard (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per thorough nom, and with thanks to Cunard for the further check - indeed, none of those points gets it over the line either. This article is one of several on non-notable businesses of this type in that area, and at most the contents of all these together might make a short shared or list-y article. SeoR (talk) 22:38, 14 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. Owen× ☎ 20:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Rahim Khan[edit]

Asad Rahim Khan (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)

At first glance, this appears to be a legit BLP - however, upon closer examination of each referenced source, it becomes evident that they merely mention the subject without providing sig./in-depth coverage. Consequently, the subject fails to meet the criteria outlined in both WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. Subject is not described as journalist and should not be measured in WP:JOURNALIST.

Subject is described as a lawyer and falls under Notability of attorneys guildeline provided in Wikipedia:Notability (law), which says 3-4 factors are sufficent. Subject meets more than that. From the guideline:

"To be a notable attorney, a person must have notable accomplishments as an attorney, backed up by references that are reliable. These accomplishments include:

trying a notable case, which has its own article in Wikipedia

  • 3 cases are on wiki

being recognized as an expert in a specialized area of law (see Mark Zaid and John S. Lowe)

  • NPOV reliable sources, Al Jazeera etc mention he is constitutional expert, coverage in The Economist on SC constitutional cases

service as a law clerk at SCOTUS or having clerked for another famous judge.

  • Clerked for Chief Justice/famous judge

service in an administrative capacity in a major court system agency (example, clerk of a Federal court, chief court administrator).

  • Clerk at Lahore high court, which in US terms is a federal court

service as a general counsel of a large state or federal agency (example, secretary of state or transportation authority).

  • Attorney General office Pakistan

Also partially meets

  • teaching at an accredited college or law school, as a chairman or tenured associate or full professor (preferably a distinguished professor per WP:PROF)"

The BLP is well-sourced, contains no OR, Maintains a NPOV. Also in WP:GNG at least two referenced sources are in-depth with sig coverage and most are not in passing, with consistent coverage in the news over many years. Retinscn20 (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC) — Retinscn20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You're not referencing a policy but a personal essay. How about I create a essay too outlining the criteria of WP:YOUTUBER, stating that one must have at least 100,000 subscribers to qualify for a WP BLP? I fear we'd end up with at least 300,000 new BLPs in just one day. And please refrain from misleading. The BLP lacks proper sourcing, contains WP:OR and in fact is WP:PROMO. You've to provide the references, which discuss the subject in depth as required by WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect I did not call it a policy. I called it a guideline. I am not misleading the discussion by pointing out that you have put this under WP:JOURNALIST, which the subject is not. You have not responded to this. We can have this discussion without being personal as WP:GD says.
Your point is understood that the guideline is not considered policy. It is still however a reasonable understanding of notability for attorneys, not journalists. If you would like to keep this to WP:GNG, that states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Significant coverage has been stated in independent sources directly discussing the subject here [1] here [2] here [3]. And more than a trivial mention has been included in leading publications Al Jazeera, Economist, Dawn. If not, rather than deleting it immediately, article can be improved to address concerns you have, which you said fits BLP criteria at first glance. Cheers. Retinscn20 (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.jantakareporter.com/entertainment/for-the-sake-of-peace-between-our-two-countries-may-your-channel-die-a-quick-death-pakistani-lawyer-turns-down-arnab-goswamis-invitation/292457/
  2. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20231105140841/https://minutemirror.com.pk/secretary-summoned-over-lg-officials-term-completion-plea/
  3. ^ https://tribune.com.pk/story/819315/saving-the-turf-the-controversy-of-the-21st-amendment here
Fry, this isn't a guideline either. It's simply a personal essay as I stated previously. So, if you intend to assess this based on WP:GNG, I'm disappointed to inform you that the first two sources (this and this) are not acceptable as they are not considered WP:RS. Even the Tribune piece is just a column, lacking sig/in-depth coverage on the subject. Hence, it clearly fails to meet WP:GNG and doesn't even come close to passing WP:N. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Working lawyer that practices in a high court, but still nothing for notability. Sourcing is either about the cases where this person is mentioned in passing, or written by the subject. I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. 103.151.0.166 (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:59, 10 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aboli[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Aboli (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. Recreated by likely SOCK after prior deletion discussion. CNMall41 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Previously deleted at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:NTV. There is no notability here. Source like News18 are reliable but has no indepth coverage on the series and the series did not garner significant media coverage. This TV series does not satisfy the notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NTV. Sources cited do not establish notability. This deleted article should not have been recreated, not like this. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:42, 18 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biscuit warmer[edit]

Biscuit warmer (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 suitable sources. Only source is an online shop selling the product. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this item has a long history. There are any number of auction catalogs, and there are probably examples in the collections of multiple museums. There's a good likelihood that it is covered in books about antique sterling, silverplate, tableware. Unfortunately I'm not easily finding them online with previews. I think this might require a trip to an actual library. Valereee (talk) 11:25, 4 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! 19:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, obviously a real kitchen item with a source. Per Valereee, this is an item found in antique stores. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I suggest it wasn't real? We still need significant coverage in secondary sources, whether a topic is real or not... AusLondonder (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the internet via a Google search has numerous pages listing biscuit warmers for sale. There are even YouTube videos on them. These are as commonplace in kitchens as frying pans. — Maile (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And how does this address GNG sourcing requirements? Sales listings are clearly not suitable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Archive.org has a lot of hits, but not a lot of description, probably because it's a tool not requiring a lot of explanation. There are also multiple types, e.g., a commercial warmer with heat element, an appliance suitable for warming biscuits[28], a cozy-type crocheted covers, and a piece of silverware. Here are the best sources I could find (not much):
  • Helliwell, Understanding antique silver plate ("shell-fluted biscuit warmer by James Dixon and Sons of Sheffield (see page 219). The two lids drop down to reveal compartments with hinged, pierced covers. Hot biscuits or muffins were stored inside the closed compartments and placed before an open fire, ensuring that the contents maintained their warmth These spectacular pieces are now so popular they are being reproduced. Luckily modern copies are easily recognisable, as their cast handles and feet lack the crisp detail of the originals")
  • San Rafael Daily Independent described as a popular item in a marketplace for hand-crocheted items
  • Kingston Daily Freeman describing an appliance as "costing no more than an ordinary biscuit warmer"
@User:Wallclockticking can you give us some input into how you decided to write this article, and whether you used an AI text generator? The text is very smooth and generic, and it's hard to understand the decision to use, as the single source, a commercial kitchenware sales link that doesn't have a lot of content. Frankly I'm wondering if the article may have been created to support the advertising link at bottom. Do you have a relationship, paid or otherwise, with Smart Buffet Ware? Did you use an AI text generation tool? Oblivy (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlikely this person was paid. Looks like they just have an interest in cooking or food. They also have Draft:Bread fork. — Maile (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bread fork was created with one cite to a museum page, and two blog pages including an extremely ad-laden https://www.cocoaandheart.co.uk. There's also Draft:Spaghetti spoon which was created with a link to a sales site. And while the edit pattern has recently been about cooking or food, the main body of work has been BLP articles[29][30][31][32].
    Some of those BLP articles, now deleted for notability, have been the subject of UPI allegations like this AfD and this talk page comment. Vince Dao still bears an UPI template, which hasn't been addressed by @Wallclockticking. Such accusations are easy to make and we can't see the deleted articles so take a Salt spoon of salt with these allegations Oblivy (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be frank, I have nothing to say to you. The last time a page I created was put up for deletion and I tried defending the page, I was tagged a paid editor for putting up an effort to stop a page I wasted my time to create from being deleted. I learnt my lesson and now I don't care about these debates anymore. I just want to edit Wikipedia because I find it therapeutic and it makes me feel like I am making an impact in the world. Bye. Wallclockticking (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You cited one source, a single online seller's website that doesn't support the article material, and I wanted to know why. I still want to know, and no, you don't have to answer me. But I would think that as someone who wants to make an impact you might like to participate here, to help move the debate towards a keep consensus.
    I was trying to stop this article from getting deleted, by looking up sources. It was only after @Maile66 suggested you were into cooking/food that I looked through your edit history and saw a pattern of having pages challenged for poor sourcing, including under circumstances where other editors questioned whether you are being paid. You didn't address the concerns then either which, again, is your prerogative but why write articles only to see them challenged and potentially deleted? Oblivy (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg your pardon, but it is clear above, that my comment was in defense of the editor, following your comment suggesting User:Wallclockticking was a paid editor. — Maile (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. You said he might be into cooking/food meaning not a paid editor. But your comment prompted me to look more deeply into the edit history (in fact, I had noted the commercial link on Spaghetti spoon already) Oblivy (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, if examples or an item are in the collection of a museum, it's quite likely a notable item. Oblivy, what museum page are you looking at for Bread fork? I'm not easily finding it in the history. Valereee (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability rules demand text describing the item at some level of detail. It's likely the silverplate item is in museums but biscuit warmers as a category aren't. Think of it like WP:NLIST - are people writing about the group of items as a group? If not the group name isn't notable.
    The museum page for "bread fork" is FN1 on Draft:Bread fork which is a cite to the V&A museum. Archive.org has sales catalogs with the term. These[33][34] may be something, but the first is two sentences and the second is an ad. Although I find WP:DICDEF is often misapplied here at AfD, that one seems to fit the bill. Oblivy (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was able even to find an explicit definition (in a non-advert part of few newspapers, one listed). For the ones looking for more: concentrate on post-war USA, where multiple households were entering the middle class, and ladies of the house needed to figure out their new kitchen needs. --Викидим (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do lean towards keep. A real-world item. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to creating Folding biscuit box with a redirect. Alternatively article could be kept and then reduced to a stub limited to what can be documented with WP:RS.
    @Викидим made some edits that led me to search for "folding biscuit box". It's the Victorian silver plate fireside warmer shown in the Helliwell book, and other silver collector guides have good information under that name:
Those don't support notability of the current article topic, because it describes a variety of things. For example, the sales site (which I removed as it was devoid of relevant content) showed a catering item with an electric heating element. Some are insulated. Some 50's-style multifunction appliances appear in search results because they can be used as a biscuit warmer. And the silver-plate ones are meant to be put by the fire. I can only find significant coverage for the last one, and nothing talking about all these different things as a group. Putting them together, even if the same name is used for all, has elements of WP:SYNTH.
@Викидим you added a link to a Bakersfield Californian article, which you describe as a definition in a newspaper. I can't find that source. Can you give us more detail? Oblivy (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a short anonymous entry in a newspaper, among other advice to housewives. Nothing is directly promoted in this section, no brands are mentioned, the section consists of the definition that I paraphrased in the article. You can search and read the US newspapers in the Newspaper Archive (free access through the Wikipedia Library program) to see for yourself. I would not start an article myself based on just this source, as it would be close to WP:NOTDICTIONARY, however, I still support keeping what we have, as sources for everyday items can be usually found. Definitions are harder to come by, that's why I am happy that I have found one, even though it obviously does not cover large industrial-size machines. Викидим (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just responded to you at Talk:Biscuit warmer. Perhaps we can agree it can be kept, but I think it should be limited to the silver plate item and we can jettison the rest. Wikipedia doesn't need to cover everything even if WP:ITEXISTS (and the name is self-descriptive if encountered in the wild). Oblivy (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support your position: keep the silver piece portion, delete other unsourced material. Викидим (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article as it has now been rewritten with a narrower scope, citing multiple reliable sources that describe the item in significant detail (relatively, for a kitchen utensil). Oblivy (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there more that can be added to the article? And any images? MaskedSinger (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know, no free use images, all the antique books are within the U.S. copyright period. @Викидим added a comment about collectability, but beyond that this is a pretty thin topic. Oblivy (talk) 06:32, 17 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! 23:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ashar Asghar[edit]

Muhammad Ashar Asghar (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)

on the face of it, it appear that the subject has directed some dramas, but those dramas themselves don't appear to be WP:N, which suggests that this person fails to meet WP:DIRECTOR. The reference cited in this BLP are either unreliable or don't mention the subject at all, contradicting what the SPA Ritajon (talk · contribs) claimed when they created this BLP. A quick Google search also yields not much, indicating a failure to meet the basic WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. None of the sources in the article or found in BEFORE have WP:SIRS. Found promo, twitter memes, name mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sources.  // Timothy :: talk  13:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Based on my findings, I haven't found sources beyond those that merely provide passing mentions. Consequently, the subject fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG as well as WP:DIRECTOR, as his works are not notably recognized. GrabUp - Talk 12:05, 16 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 03:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MUN TV[edit]

MUN TV (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)

The coverage is not in depth or significance, failing to meet the basic WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:56, 10 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 03:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahira Miyanji[edit]

Mahira Miyanji (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)

She doesn't appears to meet WP:GNG beause the press coverage she received in WP:RS lacks significance or depth which does not satisfy WP:N. N-Peace Award alone may not confer WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:55, 10 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Blackham[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Denis Blackham (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)

Previously survived AfD when criteria was less strict for his 'client list', however notability is not inherited and I don't see much individual notability for this mastering engineer. Additionally the article has been edited multiple times by the subject which is a conflict of interest. InDimensional (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and England. InDimensional (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP. Fails GNG and NBIO. The sources do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found nothing that meets SIRS from independent non-promotional sources addressing the subject indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  08:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am still alive and well, so why should my page be deleted. My page explains my career and life. Nothing wrong with that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyemastering (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Two of the sources are reliable, but mere lists; the other two are not reliable. Even if everything is true, as attested by the subject, does not mean they are notable enough for an article. We have a problem with WP:AUTO here. In 2007, this was allowed; in 2024, everyone knows we have certain standards. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 17 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 03:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Cultural Complex And Museum[edit]

Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Cultural Complex And Museum (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)

The press coverage received lacked depth or significance, failing to meet the WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:54, 10 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! 02:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masjid Eid Gah[edit]

Masjid Eid Gah (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 fails to meet WP:NBUILDING as well basic WP:GNG —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete: per A7: among other deficiencies, such as complete failure of the GNG, the article makes no claim of notability. Ravenswing 02:29, 12 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. Owen× ☎ 20:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hessburg[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mark Hessburg (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)

Unreferenced article and subject does not seem notable, either for his music career or for his app designs. Can't find any significant coverage online and seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO InDimensional (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Computing, and Germany. InDimensional (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Conducted a BEFORE search and didn't find much we could use. Took a look at the previous AFD held in 2006, and the result was keep. All I'd say is Wikipedia was so much different back then. IMO those votes would not constitute an outright keep consensus today. X (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not really a wiki editor, so please bear with me if I'm drawing the wrong conclusions here. I came across this deletion discussion by accident after I noticed that the link to Chassalla is not active in the article about the label Eisenberg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenberg_(music label) because the Chassalla article was deleted from Wikipedia. I'm from the same region as this band and I'm involved in the local gothic scene, so I know a lot about them.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Anyone care to take on a rebuttal of the many points issued by the IP editor?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 10 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 Fictosexuality. Owen× ☎ 20:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Human-oriented sexualism[edit]

Human-oriented sexualism (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)

COATRACK for fictosexuality, which is already itself a fringe topic with the article existing mainly as a massive advocacy page. In reality any sexuality peference that is directed at non-humans would almost certainly be regarded as a paraphilia in mainstream psychology, but these articles are built almost 100% without any actual clinical research, just opinion/"analysis" articles from dubious publications which seem intent on hijacking LGBT rethoric. The fictosexuality article may be fixed eventually with some work to reduce the obvious POV issues but I don't see how this article is anything but an undue weight spin-off. Both this an the main article have been created by the same editor, who very clearly seem to be a single purpose account which does nothing but link to these two articles and insert mentions of the subject in random pages.★Trekker (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete
It's important to note that this article is a translation from Japanese, and there has been multiple research on this concept in Japanese, as indicated in the references. Academic research extends beyond clinical investigation to include philosophical or theoretical studies, which are not merely opinions.  Furthermore, the sources for this article include peer-reviewed sociological qualitative research.
Since this is an article about discrimination, it is not neutral to assume it is “hijacking LGBT rhetoric,” despite multiple academic studies available.
Underestimating the research accumulation from non-English speaking countries is Western-centric. While the article of fictosexuality may display bias toward East Asian activist discourse, I believe this article is valuable as an informative piece on Japan. Zuzz22 (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is your second edit, the first being this fascinating edit to the article... ltbdl (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this idea does not have wide mainstream research in Japan either. It's a frine concept that has gotten some mentions as a curiosity. Using Japanese Wikipedia to push obscure sexual ideas had sadly become a trend recently. I've seen several attempts at translating bad Japanese Wikipedia articles into English for paraphilias because the obvious reality is that most English speaking editors do not read Japanese, so as long as the source look good and the langauge seems academic most editors leave it. It's an attempt at trickery.★Trekker (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or maybe very limited merge?). This is claimed to be a term originating in the Japanese academic field of "fictosexuality studies". Oh dear. That seems to be a red link... Do we have any reason to believe that such a field even exists? So what about the term itself? I don't speak Japanese but Google Translate renders the Japanese article in a way that is shorter and more coherent than this one. Based on that translation, the subject of the article here is "anthropocentricism" (not Anthropocentrism) which it distinguishes from "interpersonalism". Google translates various phrases as "(thing) research" when it clearly means "research about (thing)", not actually intending to imply that it is a whole academic field or discipline. So, in addition to overstating its case, it is not even clear that the article is correctly named. I don't see a topic here in its own right. This seems like it is just fictosexuality being defined by its inverse. In my view this is already covered adequately in the fictosexuality article but I would not object to a very few sentences from this possibly getting merged there provided that they are well referenced. I wouldn't rule out very brief mentions in Heteronormativity and Amatonormativity provided that there are solid references to support inclusion in those specific places. Whatever we do, we must not be led astray by WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or dodgy translations. Most of all, we need to focus on what the Japanese academics actually say and avoid falling into western misinterpretations. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at very least merge. The topic has been studied in multiple scholarly sources, so it's hard for me to think that deletion would be appropriate. If the article is fringe and "advocacy" (which hasn't been proven), then it should be possible to find opposing sources and edit the content with opposing views to balance the coverage on the article. Until then, it can be marked as {{fringe}} without needing to delete it. Because this topic is closely associated with fictosexuality, I can also see a merge as a valid option. However, it's interesting that one of the allegations is a "would almost certainly be regarded as a paraphilia in mainstream psychology"; "would"? "almost certainly"? That doesn't seem to be an objective, concrete allegation — is it or not? Skyshiftertalk 14:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason there is little critical coverage is that this very idea is so new (and frankly absurd) that no serious researchers have bothered to actually study the concept. It's pretty much 100% POV pushing "scholarly" sources from obscure blogs and low quality "journals". Way too many of Wikipedias articles on sexuality are just filled with borderline oppinion pieces from activists masquerading as soft science, and this and the fictosexuality articles are the worst offenders I think I've ever seen. This website has frankly become way too forgiving to advocacy pushing, even on LGBT topics (and I say this as a bisexual woman).★Trekker (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, why did you add back on Wikidata that fictosexuality is a sexual orientation when the wide consensus is that sexual orientations refer only to sexual preferences for gender/sex of persons? It does not seem to me that that speaks to you being unbiased and objective on this subject.★Trekker (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      if the wide consensus is that sexual orientation quote unqoute "refer only to sexual preferences for gender/sex of persons" then that would wholly exclude asexuals. (I say this as an Asexual/Aceflux, nonbinary women) Remember to WP:AGF. I don't think this page is "pushing advocacy", "an attempt at trickery", or "hijacking LGBT rethoric". I do agree it's not completely unbiased and objective. I'd say to merge this with the fictosexual page based on the WP:GNG while also rewriting both as you are correct about both pages being WP:NPOV. It should definitely include more about how it's generally considered a mirco-term/label and how it is a fringe topic. Funtimesale123 (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What leads you to perceive this article as "100% POV" relying on "low-quality "journals"? For instance, The Japan Sociological Society (日本社会学会) is Japan's largest academic society for the social sciences, and the Japanese Sociological Review is the top journal of sociology in Japan. The Institute for Gender Studies at Ochanomizu University is run by Japan's most prestigious women's university, and its peer-reviewed journal, Gender Studies, enjoys wide readership among gender researchers in Japan. The Japanese Association of Social Problems (日本社会病理学会) and the Japan Sociological Association for Social Analysis (日本社会分析学会) are members of the Japan Consortium for Sociological Society, comprising major sociological societies in Japan. These journals are evidently reliable sources. As far as I know, Kazuki Fujitaka (藤高和輝) is a well-known queer researcher in Japan who has published several academic books. Masahiro Yamada is a renowned sociologist who has researched Japan's declining birthrate. Given the assessments of these researchers, it would be unfair to dismiss this article as "just filled with borderline opinion pieces from activists masquerading as soft science" simply because the concept is unfamiliar to non-researchers. Certainly, there is room for further improvement in this article, but that should be addressed by making additions and corrections to the article.  Considering Wikipedia's guidelines, I don't believe this article should be deleted.
Gruebleener (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are little of what the article covers, it's not even clear that the translations here are accurate. Any of what they can say would be better said in the fictosexuality article, there is no independent notable subject here. ★Trekker (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The aforementioned information pertains to the sources supporting the essential content of this article. Additionally, Shin-yo-sha (新曜社) and Seibundo (成文堂) appear to be long-established academic publishers. I've made effort to improve the quality of the translation, and with the help of other editors, I hope it can be further refined.
Just as separate articles are created for topics like lesbian/gay and heteronormativity, fictosexuality and human-oriented sexualism should be addressed in distinct articles. Furthermore, given that "fictosexuality" is an English-speaking term and "human-oriented sexualism" is a concept originating from Japan, it seems more reasonable to maintain separate articles for each. Gruebleener (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No there is no good reason to have a spin-off of an already fringe topic like this just because a few possibly reliable sources have mentioned it, it's still fringe. Soft sciences like sociology come up with new terms for obscure topics all the time, and even reliable sources sometimes publish junk science, especially lately as the publishing industry has become more and more money driven. Fictosexuality is in no reality comparable to homosexuality, which is a mainstream widely accepted phenomenon studied for all of human history, especially in science for the last century. You are very clearly a single purpose editor with activist/advocacy bias here.★Trekker (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something more rational to compare it to would be xenogenders, which also doesn't have it's own article as it's still a fringe idea that is not widely accepted in the scientific community (and yet far better researched than than this supposed identity).★Trekker (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the sourcing in more depth... while trying to keep a straight face at all of this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fictosexuality or Nijikon § Human-oriented sexualism per Sjakkalle. I'm not opposed to keeping. --MikutoH talk! 18:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't have strong feelings about this article but noting that while I understand @Sjakkalle and @MikutoH's arguments, WP:UNDUE is about how fringe ideas are represented within existing articles. In this case, the discussion is about whether there's sufficient sources to list have this standalone article which, as WP:UNDUE also notes, "Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth)." If the sourcing is adequate enough to reject deletion as Sjakkalle then it seems to me the article needs to be rewritten to appropriately describe a fringe viewpoint rather than deletion. DCsansei (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some decades back, Jimbo Wales gave an interpretation of how fringe views should be covered in relation to the NPOV policy, and one of those ideas, cited in the WP:UNDUE section of the NPOV policy is that "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." I believe that my "merge" vote above is firmly in line with this content policy. The viewpoint presented in this article, that considering attraction between real and non-fictional humans to be the norm is somehow discriminatory, is held by an extremely small minority. I would say it does not belong in Wikipedia, except that the sourcing makes me just about willing to accept accommodating the material in the ancillary article on Fictosexuality. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this article could be viewed as the ancillary article where it gets included but that's fair enough. DCsansei (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with fictosexuality, this topic is not in any way independent of the other. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, articles on sexuality and normativity are separated. For example, allonormativity and amatonormativity have separate articles from asexuality. In fact, this article covers topics beyond fictosexuality, including etymology and background, fan or otaku, law, intimacy and family.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As an AFD closer, after reading the discussion, I'm leaning towards a Merge but there are also arguments against that outcome and no rough consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely that the treatment of "human-oriented sexualism" in Japan is similar to that of "allonormativity" in the English-speaking world. While both terms may not be widely recognized in society at large, there are reliable researches supporting them, and they are used by scholars as well as minority communities. The article on allonormativity is independent and is not treated as fringe, so I believe "human-oriented sexualism" should be treated the same way. Gruebleener (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a possibility that they might be the same subject under different names then that would point to a possible merge, not to keeping both. I am inclined to agree with the nomination that the article content is a COATRACK for fictosexuality but if you think that the article title is a synonym for allonormativity then maybe we should consider redirecting to that? DanielRigal (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My statement concerns how widely known the terms are and does not imply that "human-oriented sexualism" and "allonormativity" are synonyms. Gruebleener (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned WP:UNDUE, we should consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. I believe Japanese sources should be evaluated impartially. At least it is supposed that this article meet the criteria of WP:GNG Gruebleener (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with fictosexuality. This article is just the inverse of that concept; there's no extra content that's gained by having a second article. If a reader is reading the fictosexuality article and clicks on the link to human-oriented sexualism, they gain no new insights; it's simply a waste of their time. Toughpigs (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DanielRigal, Toughpigs, Headbomb, and Sjakkalle: wouldn't it work better merging with sexual norm? --MikutoH talk! 00:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is a fringe subject that shouldn't be merged with a commonly accepted subject. Toughpigs (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Toughpigs' position and reasoning. The content here is used when discussing the fringe subject of fictosexuality, and exclusively so. Per WP:UNDUE, it should therefore be covered in the article on that fringe subject, and not a more mainstream article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Didn't expect it but the topic does seem to have sourcing needed to avoid deletion. {{fringe}} seems appropriate and it should be made clear that this is a fringe idea including in Japan so I think a merger to fictosexuality or sexual norm is the best option. DCsansei (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SideCho Records[edit]

SideCho Records (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 feel it would meet CSD, however, I've already PROD'it before, so I am going to do a full AfD. The company existed at one time. Maybe sources exist, but from what I can find, I am not finding adequate sourcing to meet company notability guidelines threshold, and as presented, I feel article actually meets "no indication of importance" based deletion Graywalls (talk) 19:15, 10 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! 23:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Michelini[edit]

Lorenzo Michelini (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, an Italian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The best source I found was a transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 19:14, 10 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! 23:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brewing alcohol in Colditz[edit]

Brewing alcohol in Colditz (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 see why this would be forked. The prose is bad, and this could easily be cut down and mentioned in Olflag IV-C Oflag IV-C, which it is. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 19:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify about the timeline, I did not notice that the original creator had edited the article one minute before I added the {{Story}} tag as there was an edit conflict I didn't see. I also did not notice that they had edited it after I placed that tag when I nominated it here. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 19:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Presumably the nominator is referring to Oflag IV-C; a typo appears to have generated a redlink. No opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wcquidditch, thanks! I made the typo and attempted to fix it but broke it more haha. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 13:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, History, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic material, almost seems like a joke, with prose including "rustle up luxurious prison made concoctions", "The lads were not taking the mick naming the wine", "Green was self-deprecating;[9] either a great lad, or a sadistic shithouse", "The mess lads argued with the gobshites", "The vindictive gobshites were good lads". Geschichte (talk) 08:18, 16 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 New Hampshire Department of Transportation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority[edit]

New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority (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)

There is no indication of any significant contributions from this agency, as it was short-lived and never accomplished its intended purpose, and does not necessarily need an entire article that gives undue detail into this agency. This article should be merged, the topic would be better suited as a brief section in the NHDOT article or some other relevant article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldPalChummus (talk • contribs) 20:30, 8 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! 23:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matteo Cornelli[edit]

Matteo Cornelli (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, an Italian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was a few sentences here, a video there, but nothing substantial. JTtheOG (talk) 18:15, 10 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, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagyavidhaata[edit]

Bhagyavidhaata (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)

The article doesn't cite any WP:RS and doesn't meet WP:GNG, hence should be deleted

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raúl Pineda Rodríguez[edit]

Raúl Pineda Rodríguez (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)

Stub on a minor badminton player that doesn't meet WP:NBAD and shows no sign of WP:GNG. He has no significant achievements on BWF, which shows a complete lack of info on him. The best that I can find are passing mentions in Crónica and Movimiento y Deporte neither of which we can build an article from. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:09, 10 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! 23:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin Mathumo[edit]

Godwin Mathumo (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)

Stub on a minor badminton player that doesn't meet WP:NBAD and shows no sign of WP:GNG. He has no significant achievements on BWF and his career prize money of $41.25 doesn't give me confidence that Mathumo is a notable professional sportsperson. The best that I can find are passing mentions in CSC and Mmegi and I'm not even convinced that the former source is WP:RS. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.
48JCL 13:27, 12 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 Brighton & Hove (bus company). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 7[edit]

Brighton & Hove bus route 7 (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 bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --woodensuperman 14:46, 10 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 10. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 15:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no need to read previous discussions, this one is sourced and seems to be a well-traveled and well-known route. Have removed prod speedy deletion from the page (please don't do that). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "sources" are links to the council's and the company's own website. This is a purely WP:Run-of-the-mill route, nothing notable about it at all, which you might have realised had you bothered to read the previous discussion, where even the page creator admits they couldn't find decent sources. --woodensuperman 15:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bus and subway route articles are very common and acceptable on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I had intended to PROD this, but slipped on WP:Twinkle and accidentally AfD'd it instead. Apologies for the mess this has left, especially as it was de-prodded before I could get this AfD deleted. --woodensuperman 15:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would you prod something with sources? Maybe rethink your prod abilities, as this one is well within allowed Wikipedia article topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. OK, there are sources, but they're not "decent sources"; in other words they contribute nothing to support the idea that this bus route in notable. Athel cb (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – No apparent significance beyond being a bus route in a somewhat major city. If there was a more substantial history, it'd have a stronger case for notability. SounderBruce 17:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge My city has a 100+ bus routes which could have similar descriptions and sources to the local transit agency – this is not something we need individual articles for and notability is not shown with independent sources. A comparison to subway routes, which have substantial permanent infrastructure, is laughable, and certain bus routes could have significant secondary coverage not shown here. Brighton & Hove (bus company) could have a section or subarticle for its routes but the individual routes don't need stand-alone articles. Reywas92Talk 21:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Brighton & Hove (bus company). The notability of bus routes depends on the sources available; some routes pass the GNG with flying colors, but most do not. Of the current sources, two are not independent of the subject, and one only has trivial mentions. My initial search does not reveal any reliable independent sources with significant coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. History.buses.co.uk, which appears to be the most refered-to source, is obviously self published. The only source that is independent comes from the Brighton & Hove city council, but that alone is nowhere near enough to satisfy notability. Ajf773 (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the appropriate section of Brighton & Hove (bus company).-FusionSub (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Brighton & Hove (bus company) as this bus route does not appear to be independently notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:44, 16 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. Reliable sources meeting SIGCOV were added; passes WP:ORGCRIT (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) BoraVoro (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Connecteam[edit]

Connecteam (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)

Sources available in the usual searches seem to be a mirror of what's already in the article, funding announcements, which are excluded under WP:ORGTRIV, and the product reviews on miscellaneous sites which do not have the requisite reputation for fact checking to be considered RS (Forbes Advisor and Investopedia both also fall under this latter category). Searches for קונקטים appear to be more or less the same (e.g. [35], [36]) though I just dumped it at the usual English language search engines, I'm not sure if there is a more comprehensive index for Hebrew language web sources outside GBY.

With these sources, it is not currently possible to write an article to our current standards (i.e. more than just a list of funding announcements) so unfortunately this company might not be suited for this encyclopedia. Perhaps it might be able to find its home on a more specialised or comprehensive publication or database, or back here at a later date. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the basic media coverage contributes to the subject’s notability. Also, the famous and influential Israeli newspaper the Globes named the it as the most promising station in the country. Given the power of Israel tech and venture industry that is significantly in itself. Prhinohoursers (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom if not A7. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: This company also seems unremarkable. Why should we have an article on them? thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 14:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per good reliable sources I've just found and added and the remaining ones. Also the company has quite noticeable/notable achievements, some industry impact and notability, demonstrated by the available references. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What. You can't possibly think a random self-published book is a reliable source. It's not even in Italian. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've analyzed the page and found some good sources already there, including Forbes staff, Jerusalem Post, and Globes with in-depth coverage. Additionally, I took the responsibility to dig deeper and added several new trustworthy sources with extensive coverage from top business news media in the US and Israel. Among the Israel-based sources are Calcalist, Globes, The Marker, etc. --Improvised but so real unicorn (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep. Added the lacking Review section for the software as it is usually used across other similar pages. Significant reviews from Business.com, TechRadar, US News, and Forbes were added - both with positive and negative details. The page covers both the company and the software comprehensively with reliable sources. --FightBrightTigh (talk) 10:27, 17 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of La Liga broadcasters[edit]

List of La Liga broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more policy-based discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN. This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Conyo14 (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails NLIST. Refs in article do not discuss the subject - the broadcasters - as a group by independent sources, they are routine sports news; the list serves no CLN purpose.  // Timothy :: talk  18:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:The article is no longer just a list of broadcasters as it was in the beginning, a context has been added that gives it notability, and verifiable and reliable sources were also included. It is also one of the most important soccer leagues in the world, not the San Marino league. It has the same or more merit of existing than articles like List of NBA broadcasters, MLB broadcasters or NFL broadcasters. It has potential to continue improving, perhaps some things can be corrected but it should not be eliminated.--Edu1388 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article has been substantially expanded since nomination and is no longer a mere channel listing. Pinguinn 🐧 21:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More information that gives notability has been added and also more sources [40] GNG is well passed--Claudio Fernag (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You voted this twice already. Are you really this desparate? SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:21, 17 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. Owen× ☎ 21:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mubarak Al-Breik[edit]

Mubarak Al-Breik (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)

Had a brief career filled with cameo appearances before disappearing in 2020. No sign of any WP:SIGCOV. The closest that I can find is a press conference quote in El Sport, which contains no significant independent analysis of the player. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:45, 10 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. Owen× ☎ 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulelah Al-Zahrani[edit]

Abdulelah Al-Zahrani (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)

Played only a handful of professional games with no apparent WP:SIGCOV. My searches in Arabic don't yield anything other than social media posts, which do not indicate notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:37, 10 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 00:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MailHippo[edit]

MailHippo (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)

Deprod by IP. Deletion reason still stands. The Yahoo Finance ref is a press release, the other sources are likewise either primary and nonindependent, blogs, or both. I have performed searches in EBSCO, Gale and ProQuest and have not been able to locate any sources suitable for WP:NCORP, it is likely that it is simply WP:TOOSOON for any significant coverage to exist. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:33, 10 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 14:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Hizam[edit]

Saeed Hizam (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 had a brief professional career with no evidence of passing WP:GNG. The only mention of him that I can find from independent news sources is Arabian Gulf League, which is merely a passing mention. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:30, 10 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.

Jarle Flo[edit]

The result was Withdrawn to draftify‎. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Jarle Flo (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)

Contest PROD; fails GNG and NSPORT. Only coverage is trivial mentions in match coverage or coverage of his siblings. (And notability is not WP:INHERITED) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Withdrawn due to author request to draftifyDclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy/procedural draftify. I requested its undeletion and restoration in draft space via WP:REFUND today. In doing so, I vowed to work on it, but not at this instant. It makes no sense that this is in mainspace, hencewhy it doesn't belong in AFD either. @Dclemens1971 Respectfully, how would you know whether this fails or meets GNG? Geschichte (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This page was restored to article space and I came across it during new page reviews; following procedure after a contested PROD where the reviewer does not believe the article is notable, I sent it to AfD. @Geschichte: Any editor is capable of performing a WP:BEFORE search to validate notability; I wouldn't have nominated it if I wasn't confident that AfD would agree. However, since you are agreeing to improve the article in draft form, I will withdraw the nomination and move the page to draft. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Norway. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:49, 10 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 14:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of South China AA footballers[edit]

List of South China AA footballers (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 does not meet the WP:LISTN as an indiscriminate list of players. Let'srun (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Sports, Football, and Hong Kong. Let'srun (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – With South China AA. The information about the players is relevant to be in the main article, but the fork isn't necessary. Svartner (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - indiscriminate list. Definitely do not merge, the club's article should not be bloated with a massive list of (apparently randomly selected) past players
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. These kind of articles can be notable, this one is a mess. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.--Wish for Good (talk) 04:22, 16 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kolmogorov–Arnold Network[edit]

Kolmogorov–Arnold Network (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 wikipage is about a preprint that came out a week ago. It's generated some hype on webforums, but that's an extremely unreliable barometer of notability. Gumshoe2 (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the appropriate extent to include this as wiki material is limited to the following two sentences on Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theorem, as presently:
In the field of machine learning, there have been various attempts to use neural networks modeled on the Kolmogorov–Arnold representation. In these works, the Kolmogorov–Arnold theorem plays a role analogous to that of the universal approximation theorem in the study of multilayer perceptrons.
It doesn't seem to be the case that any particular attempt is very notable. Gumshoe2 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although less important than the issue of whether notability is established in reliable sources, I'd like to highlight that a main part of the preprint's self-reported notability is reflected in the wiki-statement "KANs have been shown to perform well on problems from knot theory and physics (such as Anderson localization)." This statement is extremely dubious. I'd encourage any mathematician to look at Table 5 on page 24 of the preprint or Table 6 on page 28. The KAN-discovered formulas are, in effect, nothing but classical regression with complicated functions. It has been possible to discover similarly complicated formulas for well over a century, and they aren't of any self-apparent interest whatsoever. The stark difference with the "Theory" or "Human"-discovered formulas should be apparent to even non-mathematicians.

The other examples in the paper are of (extremely) small toy data sets, nowhere close the scale at which machine learning is uniquely useful. As always, possibly papers in the future will develop this topic further, but at present it isn't remotely clear that this preprint is a significant development. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly situates the KAN as a recent addition to the long history of attempting to apply KART in a machine learning context. Given the standing of the researchers involved (e.g. Ziming Liu, Jim Halverson, Max Tegmark), this is more than just a random arXiv preprint and I don't see any benefit to Wikipedia in deleting this information until it gets formally published somewhere in a year or two, no matter whether we personally find the paper's content convincing or important. calr (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it's absurd to suggest that these are particularly noteworthy researchers. For example, just the five most recent papers on machine learning on arxiv (the first 5 of the 95 uploaded yesterday) are authored by Mehryar Mohri, Yu-Pin Hsu, Pawel Herman, Vaneet Aggarwal, and Lalitha Sankar. If you judge by author notability and if Ziming Liu and Jim Halveson meet your standard, then it seems that nearly every new preprint on machine learning is something more than just a random arxiv preprint.
It's true that Max Tegmark is somewhat famous for non-research work like Our Mathematical Universe and Life 3.0 and for various public advocacy. (At least in his former life as a physicist, he was often criticized for unscientific babble, see e.g. the criticism section in Our Mathematical Universe.)
And even if the authors were top machine learning researchers, that wouldn't make any random new paper of theirs significant. Likewise it also won't be enough for this preprint to just be formally published. It has to be recognized as significant by reliable sources. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If we allow this article then we'll also have to allow many other articles" isn't really an argument for non-notability. calr (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bizarre description of (that part of) what I'm saying, which is that the word "notable" loses all meaning if just about every preprint is notable. I am suggesting that your usage of the word is not even cogent.

Here's equally (or much more) notable authors from preprints #5-10 uploaded yesterday: Hao Li, Andreas Krause, Djamila Aouada, Dan Klein, Stefano Savazzi. So all ten of the most recent preprints on machine learning uploaded to arxiv are clearly 'more than just a random arXiv preprint' by your standard. Should I go through all 95 uploaded yesterday? Gumshoe2 (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't raised anything for me to cogently respond to. You argument seems to be 1) you've personally reviewed the paper and didn't find it notable, 2) the article's title comes from a preprint, and some preprints aren't notable, so the concept isn't notable either (and even when it does appear in a journal, that still doesn't count unless some other source also says so), 3) vague insinuations about "hype on webforums". None of those are relevant to Wikipedia's definition of notability. calr (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC) (Clarified calr (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC) )[reply]
"the article's title comes from a preprint"
This framing seems disingenuous; everything except for five sentences in the History section comes from this new preprint. Those sentences belong naturally in the page Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theorem. Without much loss, they are even well represented by the sentence presently there, with two of the references included: "In the field of machine learning, there have been various attempts to use neural networks modeled on the Kolmogorov–Arnold representation." Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A preprint from last month is not a suitable basis for an encyclopedia article. Bulking up a page about a new proposal with "background" references that don't specifically discuss the new proposal is the wrong way to go about writing anything encyclopedic. Adopting the terminology proposed by an unreliable source, and taking that choice of terminology as so definitive that it establishes the article's title, violates NPOV. XOR'easter (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed, that a preprint from last month is not a suitable basis for an encyclopedia article. If something is here in two or three months, there will be another article. Especially in this technical space, we should be cautious that WP is not used to pump a company. RayKiddy (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case I'm not aware of any relevant corporate interests. However, I think wiki should generally tread very carefully on machine learning/AI topics, since many outwardly reliable sources in the field fail to provide any critical perspective - often (indirectly) because of corporate interests, but also simply because of lax standards within the field. For example, it's easy to find reliable sources saying that AlphaZero didn't use any knowledge about chess or Go except the rules, since this is how Google advertised their work - even though if you read the primary source material this is seen as, at best, an exaggeration. In many such cases it's hard if not impossible to find reliable sources taking a critical perspective, which is obviously unfortunate for wiki.
    But at least for this wikipage, that's a moot point for now, since there are no reliable secondary sources on this preprint whatsoever. Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right, I made 16,000 edits over 20 years as part of a corporate conspiracy to, umm, write one article about a niche topic in machine learning and "pump the stock" of a PhD thesis topic. Well done on cracking the case, your username is truly justified! calr (talk) 10:20, 18 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 Batik Air#Incidents and accidents. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batik Air Flight 6723[edit]

Batik Air Flight 6723 (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)

If other articles with injuries and damage are not notabile enough to have a page this has to be deleted. Also a lot of other cases of pilots falling asleep are not on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by SignorPignolini (talk • contribs) 05:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SchoolChromebookUser (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it doesn't meet the notability guidelines and i agree with the reasoning behind this deletion. this article was deleted previously so i have no idea why it was re-added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IDKUggaBanga (talk • contribs) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. It's too early to say whether this event will have lasting effects but there is a clear failure of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Obviously, events in which pilots falling asleep are somewhat uncommon but the fact is that the aircraft was not close to causing a major incident/accident, although, it definitely could've had they been unresponsive for more than 30 minutes.
Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:18, 13 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 14:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleeze Nasser[edit]

Aleeze Nasser (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 see her meeting WP:ACTOR criteria, as I am unable to verify major roles in films which require as required per WP:ACTOR. I tried evaluating it based on WP:GNG, but there's not enough coverage to pass that either. AUTOBIO by Aleeze nasser (talk · contribs) —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clear case of an unsourced bio. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:57, 10 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. Note to nominator: Please offer more detail and explain how it fails. See WP:IGNORINGATD. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Parsons[edit]

Tommy Parsons (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 Joeykai (talk) 12:58, 10 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 14:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Level Film[edit]

Spirit Level Film (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)

In short, fails WP:GNG and lacking of WP:RS. Source consists of WP:PRIMARY. The BBC source does not credit the production company. This, like many of those also listed via AfD, may have been created by WP:COI. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 10 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 Enron scandal#Timeline of downfall. (non-admin closure) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Causey[edit]

Richard Causey (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 WP:BLP1E. TarnishedPathtalk 12:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Enron scandal#Timeline of downfall. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:19, 17 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Snake and the Stallion[edit]

The Snake and the Stallion (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)

Besides being entirely or poorly unsourced, this does not assert ntoability, thus fails WP:GNG. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Arron, Simon (2005-03-12). "The Gearbox: Simon Arron settles down to some widescreen racing". The Daily Telegraph. ProQuest 321215378. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      The review notes: "If this were a film script, it would be rejected on the grounds of Stallone-grade realism shortfall. But it isn't. This is the true story of down-on-his-luck American Carroll Shelby's dramatically successful exploits as a racing team owner in the early 1960s. There isn't a great deal in the way of contemporary footage (although the surviving material is pleasingly evocative), so the bulk of the story is told by those who took part. Their narrative is an undiluted treat. Director Richard Symons ended up with far too much footage, so a second, outtake-rich disc is included. DVD extras can be superfluous frivolities - worthless junkets that tempt the unwitting to part with their cash. These, however, are every bit as compelling as the main documentary."

    2. "Watch Cobra Ferrari Wars on 2 DVDs". The Province. 2005-02-04. p. C2. ProQuest 266864624.

      The article notes: "The Cobra Ferrari Wars movie is a classic tale of Texas-chicken- farmer-turned-American-sporting-hero versus Italian automotive aristocracy. Ten years in the making, the documentary tells the remarkable story of Carroll Shelby's mission to "nail Ferrari's ass," resulting in the fearsome Cobra -- possibly the most revered sports car of all time. It made its way on to some TV screens shortly after its release in 2002 but then gathered dust until recently, when producer/ director Richard Symons got to work adding previously unseen footage and interviews. Now a twin-set DVD version has been released for about $50. In addition to the original film, it includes three picture galleries, deleted scenes and six hours' worth of uncut transcripts of interviews with Shelby, giving a unique insight into the man as well as spilling the beans on back-door shenanigans/politics. Its fast-pace, 1960s-era soundtrack and split-screen scenes make it compelling viewing."

    3. "Pick the bones out of that one Enzo". News Letter. 2002-05-18. p. 3. ProQuest 324764775. Retrieved 2024-05-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: "And so began the Cobra Ferrari wars. British director Richard Symons has spent over four years researching, filming and compiling unique, never-before-seen footage of this dramatic era in motor racing history. The Cobra Ferrari Wars documentary is produced to recapture the spirit of the 60's in its racing action, soundtrack and graphics and is a compelling tale of courage and dogged determination to be shown on BBC television this summer. The unique footage tells the story of how self-belief and circumstances combined to propel a bunch of Southern Californian hot rodders and their charismatic leader against incredible odds to wage war in Europe and give Enzo Ferrari the hiding of his life. ... For petrolheads and those intrigued by this titanic David and Goliath struggle The Cobra Ferrari Wars makes compelling viewing. The programme will be shown on BBC4 Digital on Monday, June 17, at 9.00pm (following the Le Mans racing weekend), and will migrate to BBC TV later. "

    4. Less significant coverage:
      1. "Cobra strikes". The Advertiser. 2005-02-05. p. M03. ProQuest 355427490.

        The article notes: "Automotive history buffs will be interested in The Cobra Ferrari Wars, right, a documentary 10 years in the making, telling the story of Carroll Shelby's mission to beat Ferrari at Le Mans, resulting in the Cobra. Available for the first time on DVD, the pack includes the full broadcast film, three picture galleries and a lot of previously unseen footage. The set is available at selected specialist motoring shops."

      2. Connolly, John (2006-09-02). "Make my day with a wild armchair ride". The Australian. ProQuest 356186309. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

        The article notes: "The Cobra Ferrari Wars: Without doubt the best racing documentary ever. Director Richard Symons spent four years researching and producing the story of how chicken farmer Carroll Shelby came to take on Enzo Ferrari and win. $59.95"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cobra Ferrari Wars (also known as The Snake and the Stallion) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Sources presented by Cunard show the subject is notable. Thanks! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by Cunard that together enables a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will offer to call close to this nomination ASAP given Cunard's impressive work to improve the article which I was unable to find which led to this nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpacedFarmer (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× ☎ 20:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GT Racer[edit]

GT Racer (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)

Source is entirely unsourced, does not assert notability other than being broadcasted on a cable channel and thus fails WP:GNG SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:17, 10 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! 06:58, 17 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. Owen× ☎ 13:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of FA Cup broadcasters[edit]

List of FA Cup broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; one is a Twitter post; and the rest are merely announcements, some are WP:PRIMARY. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:07, 10 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. Owen× ☎ 13:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suckapunch Records[edit]

Suckapunch Records (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 NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 11:59, 10 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 Khaled Anam#Family and XC-protect the page for six months, at which point we can reexamine independent notability. Owen× ☎ 13:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Komail Anam[edit]

Komail Anam (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 see her meeting WP:SINGER or WP:ACTOR criteria, as I am unable to verify major roles in TV shows which require as required per WP:ACTOR. @MPGuy2824: redirected it, but it was restored by a SPA. I tried evaluating it based on WP:GNG, but there's not enough coverage to pass that either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,
Thanks for reaching out about the article for Komail Anam. I understand your concerns about meeting the notability criteria for singers and actors (WP:SINGER & WP:ACTOR).
I've included sources in the article that demonstrate Komail Anams's involvement in major and side roles for notable TV shows.
Here are some suggestions:
- Consider the relevancy and credibility of the sources I've provided.
- You can also check the Wikipedia pages of the specific TV shows mentioned in the credits to verify their notability.
While WP:GNG might not be fully met at this point, the provided sources do establish involvement in established productions.
I do want to address the feeling of being bullied. Wikipedia relies on open discussion and collaboration, but it should always be done respectfully.
Would you be open to discussing this further and exploring ways to improve the article to meet notability criteria? We can work together to find a solution that ensures accuracy and adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines.
Thanks Thehasanansari (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his family, like before. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allan Nonymous, Please check BLP page history. I am fine with redirection as long the page is PROTECTED. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still think a redirect is good, but salt this page for creation, given the edit warring by Thehasanansari. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allan Nonymous, Sure - i can withdraw this if its SALTED. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that notability and verifiable sources are key factors.
While the actor I'm interested in may be young and their career is still growing, they've already achieved some success:
- Participated in 6 dramas with notable roles
- Has a singing career
Their portfolio is demonstrably expanding, and they're gaining recognition.
I understand this might not meet the strictest criteria, but I'm hoping to understand if there's still a chance for a Wikipedia page in their case.
Furthermore, I'd like to clarify a point. Creating a "placeholder" page (sometimes referred to as "salting") for this actor wouldn't be helpful. They are not an unknown personality, and Wikipedia is a public platform intended to document notable individuals.
Additionally, redirecting to their father's page wouldn't be appropriate either. This actor has established their own identity and career achievements.
Thanks for your time and clarification. 2400:ADC1:42F:1400:C42C:B6:D538:5171 (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPI filed.—Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not enough to show that WP:NACTOR, WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG have been met. Fair amount of unsourced promotional drek before pruning, afterwards this is a basic start article. Web searches didn't show any useful sources to add that would help for notability. Ravensfire (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would also be okay with a redirect per Allan Nonymous's suggestion, might need to consider at least some semi-protection if not more if the Nauman335 sockfarm is looking here. Ravensfire (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as before is recommended as doesn't meet WP:NSINGER. Even as actor does not appears in any significant role.Sameeerrr (talk) 16:05, 11 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. Owen× ☎ 13:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Dolmetsch[edit]

Ricardo Dolmetsch (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:NOTLINKEDIN. The subject of the article fails several of our notability policies: there is no evidence of WP:INDEPTH coverage – all references are to publications where he was co-author, or to unrelated press releases about drugs that don't even mention the subject's name, not speaking about confirming his role or achievements. There is no evidence of compliance with any criteria listed under WP:NACADEMIC either. The listed awards are minor awards, none has an article (note: NIH Director's Pioneer Award is not an award honouring its recipients but a research initiative).

Worst: there are many unverified claims in the article: the subject, who left Novartis in 2020, is claimed to have been "involved in early successes in gene therapy, including (...) Zolgensma (...) and Hemgenix". However, Novartis was not involved in Zolgensma development – the drug was developed by a US startup Avexis which received marketing authorisation for it just before the subject left Novartis, while remaining a separate company from Novartis; whereas Hemgenix is not a success yet, as it's barely a year on the market with very little uptake from payers outside the US. Claims that Dolmetch contributed to their "successes" appear unfounded and entirely unsourced WP:PUFFERY.

Nearly every sentence needs one or more of {{citation needed}}, {{fails verification}}, or {{secondary source needed}}.

All in all, with lack of independent coverage, I don't think this coporate staff member fulfils our criteria of encyclopaedia-level notability. — kashmīrī TALK 11:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī TALK 11:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Colombia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, primarily through role in Novartis over many years rather than through academic posts. His research output is high; unusually, for a mid-career scientist, has had an interview published in a peer-reviewed journal (Nature Medicine). While there might be concerns about particular claims, these can be resolved by normal editing. Scopus H-factor of 49 suggest significant impact. Klbrain (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Role in Novartis over many years? What policy would this be based on? Because there are tens of thousands of corporations in the world, perhaps hundreds of thousands of C-level executives, and he wasn't even C-level, so we'd need a policy if this was to be a notability criteria. — kashmīrī TALK 18:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable, also a few book listings found [50], mentions he was profiled in the NY Times in 2014, and here [51]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NYT profile is an interview, but is here: [52]. Allan Nonymous, also this [53] hits us the trifecta for WP:GNG. (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mostly per WP:PROF#C1 and the multiple first-author quadruple-digit-citation papers in his Google Scholar profile. The additional evidence linked above by Oaktree is also suggestive (although not yet definitive) of possible notability through WP:GNG as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two citations precisely, from 1997 and 1998 (so citations span 25+ years). Barely a dozen first-author articles, the last one from 2018. 65 publications indexed by PubMed[54] – a mediocre result for a late-career researcher. Sorry. — kashmīrī TALK 18:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also a paper from 2001. Just FYI, the threshold for citations is generally around 100, this is beyond that by an order of magnitude. A claim that he fails WP:NACADEMIC is thus pretty weak. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first-author citation counts I'm seeing on Google Scholar are: 2426 (1998), 2394 (1997), 1112 (2001), 358 (2011), 233 (1994), 209 (2003), etc. And many many more citations if you include all his papers, not only the first-author ones. That is a strong record, over a wide range of years. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:PROF#C1 which he clearly passes with 20+ papers that have 100+ citations. There isnt much more that needs to be said. --hroest 12:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The article, seemingly created by the subject or someone very close to him, contains a lot of made-up claims and attempts to look more important. For instance, the author claims to have been Global Head of Neuroscience at Novartis. Actually, he wasn't[55] – he did not work for the Swiss pharmaceutical giant but for Novartis Institutes of BioMedical Research, a US-based biotechnology company (separate legally and structurally, even as wholly owned by Novartis). Different company, different post, different splendour, different country. I've updated the article, but a bad taste remained. Then, the article claims that the subject oversaw the development of gene therapies while in NIBR ("his team... helped bring several therapies to the clinic that included Zolgensma"). That again is misleading. Not only has NIBR never done any substantial work on the mentioned gene therapy (apart from internal consulting) but NIBR even does not carry out clinical development. The mentioned Zolgensma in particular was licensed by Novartis long after all its preclinical and much of clinical development was over.

After the subject joined NIBR, its neuroscience division indeed attempted to engage in clinical development – initially, it was clinical trials of branaplam. Yet the two trials they conducted not only failed but the first one was a disaster (children dying due to poor decision making, and no sensible data generated in 7 years) – to the extent that, to the best of my knowledge, Novartis recommended internally that NIBR no longer does clinical development again. The subject left NIBR shortly after.

That's not the end of problems with the article. The subject could not "curate the drug development pipeline that included... ofatumumab", the reason being that ofatumumab received marketing authorisation four years before the subject joined NIBR,[56] not mentioning that ofatumumab was discovered and had preclinical development done by the Danish company Genmab.

Unfortunately, I have no time to research other claims, however the sheer number of WP:PEACOCK/WP:PROMO statements constitutes a big red light for me. — kashmīrī TALK 00:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: please be aware that this is WP:NOTCLEANUP and while the COI and the WP:PROMO statements are a problem, they are not grounds for deletion but rather grounds for improving the article. Feel free to improve the article and remove unsourced / unsubstantiated statements. I see that even some of the sourced statements use articles written by the subject itself as source which is obviously not an independent source. --hroest 16:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hannes Röst Well, I added quite a few {{secondary source needed}} tags, but @Allan Nonymous removed all[57] of them[58]. However, I think we all know that being listed among co-authors on a paper is not same as "that's what he worked on", and isn't covered by WP:ABOUTSELF.
I know it's not WP:CLEANUP, however the sheer number of problems with the article is a good indicator whether the article is ready for mainspace. Note that it was created in draftspace, however the author did not submit it for review before moving it to mainspace. Had the article followed the normal route, we wouldn't be having such a discussion at AfD.
Draftifying is an option, too. — kashmīrī TALK 17:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed them under the assumption that being a co-author on a paper is an uncontroversial sign they worked on the subject. Any conclusions drawn from the research (i.e. the results/conclusions/implications of such research) would definitely require an independent source (likely a paper that cites and interprets the information or a review). If you disagree, feel free to add them back, I made the edits assuming this interpretation WP:ABOUTSELF was uncontroversial. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Allan Nonymous I can only echo Maproom's comments posted at this link: Papers authored or co-authored by Dolmetsch don't help with [establishing that he is notable]. Because they are not about Dolmetch. — kashmīrī TALK 20:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing two things here, WP:NOTABILITY (i.e. the policy used to establish whether a subject is notable) and WP:VERIFIABILITY (i.e. whether some content about a subject can belong in an article). These two policies have different standards based on the different aims they serve. My edits had nothing to do with WP:NOTABILITY, and everything to do with WP:VERIFIABILITY, so have little bearing on the argument at hand here and probably better discussed on the talk page of this article. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are linked. We can't establish notability – and this discussion is about the subject's notability – without being able to verify claims. If it turns out that a large number of claims are unsourced, or false as shown earlier – then editors might prefer to send the article back to draftspace. — kashmīrī TALK 21:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per David Eppstein's logic. Incidentally, I have tried to tidy the article up a bit but it still needs removal of promotional language. Qflib (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Hello my name is Ricardo Dolmetsch. Someone brought to my attention that there was a wikipedia article about me and that there was a discussion about its content. I’m arriving a little late to the discussion but I thought I could shed some light on some of the issues that are being discussed. First I didn’t commission or approve this article. It was submitted by my mother who is a journalist in Colombia, without my consent or approval. My mom thinks I’m important but I don’t think that meets the criteria for notability in Wikipedia. There are many scientists who have records like mine so I leave it to you to decide whether to keep the page or take it down. The small group of people who need to know about me can usually find me online, so a Wikipedia entry is not absolutely essential.

  1. In case you decide to keep the page I would like to clarify a few things for the record. My original name is Richard Carl Elciario Dolmetsch and I was born in Colombia but my scientific name since my graduate days has been Ricardo Dolmetsch because there were too many Richard’s in the department where I got my Ph.D. and Rick, Rich, Dick and Richard were taken.
  2. I make no claim to having discovered or invented Zolgensma. Zolgensma is a gene therapy for SMA that was developed originally at Avexis which was purchased by Novartis who oversaw the registration of the drug. I was one of the Novartis scientists that proposed the purchase of Avexis. I was later the main contact between Avexis and Novartis research (which was called NIBR in those days) until it was discovered that the Avexis development team had committed fraud and Avexis was reorganized.
  3. At the time of the Avexis purchase Novartis had about ten gene therapy projects in development in the neuroscience group which is one of the reasons that Novartis was interested in Avexis. The neuroscience gene therapy programs were initiated by a very bright recruit to our group and were quite advanced.
  4. For about twenty years, the Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research (NIBR) was the research and early development arm of Novartis. It was in charge of the pipeline from discovery to Ph2 proof of concept clinical studies.
  5. Branaplam was a small molecule splicing modulator developed for SMA. It was in active development at the time of the Avexis purchase. It’s not true that any children died because of executive decisions related to Branaplam. The program was put on hold by the FDA because there was a tox signal during development but the children that were being dosed continued to be dosed albeit at a lower dose. The program failed in a later trial for Huntington’s Disease because of toxicity observed in adult patients.
  6. I was the global head of Neuroscience at NIBR which was the research and early development arm of Novartis. I was part of the Neuroscience leadership team which included a head of Neuroscience development and a head of Neuroscience Commercial. My leaving NIBR had nothing to do with Branaplam. I left Novartis in good standing to take a position at uniQure.
  7. Ofatumumab was an approved drug that had been previously on the market in oncology. It was purchased by Novartis and developed for MS. I was part of the leadership team that worked on this program as I was part of the leadership team that worked on Erenumab (developed at Amgen) and Siponimod (developed at Novartis).

Ok that’s it. Thank you all so much for being such selfless editors of Wikipedia. It’s kind of amazing that we have this resource. I’m thinking I should join the effort and help you all. 24.2.241.30 (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Ricardo[reply]

@24.2.241.30: Thanks for commenting here and clarifying, Ricardo. You'd be most welcome to register for an account and contribute your knowledge to the global encylopaedia.
The way you described your work is definitely more modest than the original writeup by the article author, as the issue I flagged was, essentially, with exagerrated claims not backed up by the few available sources. For instance, while you now described your role in the purchase of Avexis by Novartis, the article said that "your team [at NIBR] brought Zolgensma to the clinic", which I hope you agree is rather imprecise (and folks at Novartis Gene Therapies may be offended).
I'll see how to reword the article using based on other details that you provided. The scarcity of reliable independent sources is always a challenge.
Re. branaplam, I'm inclined to disagree on details, but this is perhaps not the place to discuss it.
Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 19:31, 14 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 11:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KSEX-CD[edit]

KSEX-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)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 10:39, 10 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 software patents#Notable due to proprietor hyperbole. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scientigo[edit]

Scientigo (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)

Small patent troll that made a bit of an ephemeral stir 20 years ago when it tried to claim a patent on XML. Quickly sank back into obscurity. As a company it doesn't really do anything. 29 employees, 6 million revenue. No sources meet WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:ORGCRIT tells us that sources for such companies must be presented with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. Thus CORPDEPTH says Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. No such sources exist. This is just a patent troll. Added a notability template in April to attempt to address the issues but this was summarily removed after a second report of the patent trolling was added (misdated. It is from 2005, and not 2020). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the complaint the company is just a patent troll and doesn't really do anything misses the point a little bit – the patent trolling is precisely what the company is notable for. I agree it sank back into obscurity afterwards, but notability isn't temporary. The requirement is the company receives significant independent coverage in multiple sources; there's nothing about this coverage needing to take place over a prolonged period.
(misdated. It is from 2005, and not 2020) 2005 is the publication date, 2020 is the archive date. – Teratix ₵ 12:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it sank back into obscurity afterwards, but notability isn't temporary—OK but the immediate next section is notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time, so the question is, does SBST apply here? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provide deeper analysis, not mere description; they don't fall into the category of routine coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism. I could see a reasonable argument this could be covered as part of a larger article (patent troll, XML or somewhere else), or that the article needs to be rewritten to be about the patent controversy rather than the company as such, but the nominator was pretty clear he doesn't think there are any sources providing deep and significant coverage on the topic and seeks deletion rather than any alternative. – Teratix ₵ 15:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of software patents § Notable due to proprietor hyperbole. A burst of coverage surrounding ridiculous claims spanning about two weeks is basically textbook SBST. We're not here to host articles on every single entity that attained 15 minutes of fame (or two weeks, as the case may be) because they announced something ridiculous for publicity, and just because it's not listed in WP:ORGTRIV doesn't mean it should be automatically accepted. I did find two WP:TRADES sources, but I don't think they overcome the presumption of non-independence. In fact, both of them — Econtent Magazine ("SourceWare: The Search Engine with Good Intentions", TWL ProQuest 213817847 and Equities Magazine (two articles, "Special Situations" and "The Secret of Scientigo", which were formerly both available online) — read as magazines publishing puff pieces. Willing to kick it to RSN though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a reasonable redirect/merger target, I'd support that. – Teratix ₵ 12:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support that redirect too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per no notability provided. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a couple of mentions in insider trade zines doe not constitute significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 17 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! 06:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Little Caesars Pizza Bowl broadcasters[edit]

List of Little Caesars Pizza Bowl broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS that is neither a YouTube video or a dead link; one is a WP:PRIMARY of one of the teams, three of the ESPN articles is about the Bowl or BCS games, not exclusive to this and the rest is about the games itself with the broadcasting element being given a passing mention. The rest is about the games itself, far less for the broadcasting of this game. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:53, 10 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! 06:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Liberty Bowl broadcasters[edit]

List of Liberty Bowl broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; besides a YouTube and a dead link, one is a WP:PRIMARY of one of the teams, one needs a Flash reader and thus inactive. Of the news scans, one is about the game itself, one is an announcment and one redirects to the home page. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per above nom. I see no encyclopedic value or reason for this list. Also, the editor who created it is now a blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 17:12, 10 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! 06:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alamo Bowl broadcasters[edit]

List of Alamo Bowl broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS, barring five Wikipedia articles; two duplicate source is about the BCS game itself, not just this. One is about the Bowl games itself, one is about the coverage of the Bowl games and the rest about the game itself with the goverage being given a passing mention. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per above nom. I see no encyclopedic value or reason for this list. Editor who created it is now a blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 19:50, 10 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! 06:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Armed Forces Bowl broadcasters[edit]

List of Armed Forces Bowl broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; one is a dead link; four (a duplicate source of two articles), is about the BCS game in general, not just the broadcasting of this and one has a brief info about TV information and five of those (a single source), although a WP:PRIMARY, now a dead link. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per above nom. I see no encyclopedic value or reason for this list. Also, the editor who created it is now a blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 17:12, 10 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! 06:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Namirimo Tamale[edit]

Joyce Namirimo Tamale (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 businessperson, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search turns up only the interview in the ACCA house magazine cited here, the rest is only passing mentions. Her honorary doctorate is from the "Swiss School of Business and Management", which appears to be a degree mill, since it's not listed in the Swiss Accreditation Council's website. Article was moved to draft, submitted without improvement today, then copypasted to main space four minutes later. Wikishovel (talk) 09:20, 10 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! 06:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Holiday Bowl broadcasters[edit]

List of Holiday Bowl broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; is about a switch from ESPN, which should be in an article about the game itself, not a list of broadcasters. Additionally, one is a YouTube video, one is about the BCS coverages in general, not just this and though all of those are about the games itself, the broadcasting gets a passing mention. The rest is about the games itself, far less for the broadcasting of this game. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:10, 10 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! 06:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Independence Bowl broadcasters[edit]

List of Independence Bowl broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; one is a 404, one are announcments of the BCS coverages, not just this. The rest is about the games itself, far less for the broadcasting of this game. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:57, 10 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! 06:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fiesta Bowl broadcasters[edit]

List of Fiesta Bowl broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; one is about the BCS games in general, not just this, one is a 403, three of those talk about the BCS and Bowl games in general one is a TV schedule listing and one is about one of the announcers in general, not the boradcasting of this game. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:51, 10 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! 06:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gasparilla Bowl broadcasters[edit]

List of Gasparilla Bowl broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS, this game gets a brief mention, the rest are TV schedules. In all, not doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:40, 10 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! 06:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of First Responder Bowl broadcasters[edit]

List of First Responder Bowl broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS, two of those are blogspot posts. Of the four ESPN press releases, two of those are TV schedule listings, two of those is about the 34 Bowl games, not just this which gets a brief mention. In all, not doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the rest are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:31, 10 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! 06:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hawaii Bowl broadcasters[edit]

List of Hawaii Bowl broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; as with the ESPN sources, one redirects to the main page whilst the other is a 403. The other two are news report of the game itself, so not doing much to assert notability, which is used to argue about the notability of lists like this. One is a YouTube video, the one of a local paper leads to an error message. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per above nom. I see no encyclopedic value or reason for this list. Editor who created it is now a blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 17:10, 10 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. There is clear consensus among editors other than the primary contributors to the article that sources are lacking, and no convincing rebuttals to delete arguments' source analyses have been provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sewerslvt[edit]

Sewerslvt (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:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, barely any reliable sources online. Sources used in the article may not be reliable, especially excessive use of Discogs. ToadetteEdit! 08:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "excessive use of Discogs" is on the discography section only, alongside musicbrainz.
It does not fail WP:GNG, but may or may not require certain new sources depending on WP:NMUSIC.
Sufficient sources were provided.These include:
https://www.scaruffi.com/vol8/sewerslv.html
https://musicidb.com/artists/Sewerslvt
https://cainhillier.substack.com/p/the-last-time-i-saw-you-sewerslvt
https://gzo.medium.com/draining-love-story-review-analysis-878618e5895
https://microgenremusic.com/review/draining-love-story-by-sewerslvt-music-review/
Some content may have to be revised and/or cut for the unbiased standard. However it is clear it has sufficient, reliable sources that cover the subject on its varying sections. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing the movement from draftspace to articlespace, as said above it is clear it has sufficient, reliable sources that cover the subject on its varying sections. Registered and Autoconfirmed users do not have to go through AfC to create an article, so it was moved. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Medium and Substack are self-published sources. And Discogs and Musicbrainz are not, in fact, used only in the discography, but excessively all throughout the article body. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 04:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With my updates I think it meets more requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (music), they have released on two important indie labels which I have updated it to reflect. I think moving it back to draft would be the best choice, it seems to have been published prematurely. Kawaiidumbassery (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that the consensus so far is to move it back to the draftspace. I am still concerned, there are other articles released with less sources then provided on the article for Sewerslvt. I can also account for the problems on the article, including the reliance on much of one source. There has also been a commons deletion on a primary image used on the article. The article shouldn't be deleted, neither kept on the articlespace. I am still curious though, what defines an article as premature? NikolaiVektovich (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to fall short of notability guidelines, and even if draftified I don't see it going far. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 04:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only one apparently interested in working on this article is the inexperienced editor who created it and moved it from draftspace, so I see little point in draftifying it again. But will gladly reconsider if anyone else is willing to pick this up as a draft. Owen× ☎ 21:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I disclose I am the primary contributor to the article. I have attributed many sources to the article, and even if it does not meet majority consensus as passing WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC, I still see how it could be improved as new sources are attributed to it over time. There are 10 sources on the article, each being applied to varying sections for citation standards. Seeing others opinions, Draftifying it feels like the best move. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 17:49, 18 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. Owen× ☎ 13:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Carlstrom (whistleblower)[edit]

Victor Carlstrom (whistleblower) (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 sources are a column and two citations of a deprecated source. WP:BEFORE only returns similar, unreliable, sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sweden, and United States of America. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I looked through the main Swedish news archive to try to find good sources to save this article, but only found a press release. //Julle (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's because Swedish media censored his case since Victor Carlstrom's exposed corruption and money laundering within the elite in Sweden and sued them for 4,2 billion USD.
    This people did a "catch and kill" in the Swedish media. But court documents don't lie and his case was real and his asylum is real. Then only right wing media in America writes about the case because the left wing media in Sweden is the same people as the left wing media in America and Sweden only have left wing media bescially.
    But again this case is the perfect example why Wikipedia should not be a trusted source of information since here we have court documents and right wing media such as NewsMax and Townhall supporting everything but only because left wing media is the people Victor Carlstrom exposed and it does not fit their narrative he has to be deleted.
    Maybe re name Wikipedia to Fake News Source of information? Or some Wikipedia admins can stop falling for the group thing, show some courage and restore the page . Rionass (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have little hope of convincing you, but most people here are far more interested in Wikiepdia's norms and guidelines than in being footsoldiers in the cultural wars. Politics is less important than the encyclopedia. We try to understand notability and verifiability as we perceive them. There's no great conspiracy: Everyone else who's been involved in the conversation keeps an eye on all Sweden-related topics which are up for deletion and comment in a number of those discussions – we try to find sources to save articles according to the Wikipedian guidelines (having an article on a topic is generally more desirable than not having an article), and in this case we failed. /Julle (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found nothing that makes him notable in reliable sources. Sjö (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Court documents is a reliable as they get and several articles in Townhall, NewsMax and other right wing media. Left wing media censored this and now same people want to delete his Wikipedia page.
    It's so obvious even a child can see what happens here. Rionass (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no coverage. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very obvious this person Victor Carlstrom is notable, first Swedish Citizen with asylum protection in America put him in same category as Edward Snowden. On op of that he sued Sweden and it's largest banks and power people for 4,2 billion USD, frankly I don't know any Swedish person who is more notable, and he also have over a million followers on social media.
This is the perfect example why Wikipedia is NOT a credible or reliable source of information and should not appear on Google. It's because the only reason some want to delete this page it's because his case does not fit the narrative they have, plus the powerful people Victor Carlstrom sued controls the media in Sweden and elsewhere and the powerful people did a "catch and kill" which is paid the media to suppress the case.
The same people within the media who suppressed his the case, also have unlimited of accounts on Wikipedia who deletes everything that doesn't fit the narrative where this is a very good example.
If this article is deleted it would serve as the perfect example why no one should trust Wikipedia. If some admins on Wikipedia act without group think and on the facts this page will be restored.
Everyone reading this knows this is exactly as it is, so it will be very interesting to see what happens to Victor Carlstrom's page. Rionass (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not here to right great wrongs. If you do have decent sources, please provide a link. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I will give more than enough of sources, here is 108 court fillings from federal court in New York and Court of appeals in the second circuit, fillings confirm everything in the NewsMax, TownHall and the articles below, plus confirm his asylum, it's cased closed for this page to stay up.
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11569/528545
Here is more articles confirms the things in the court fillings.
https://www.lx.com/news/true-crime-tuesday-on-the-run/19127/
https://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/whistleblower-victor-carlstrom-epic-scale-150b-escalation-against-financial-corruption/
https://money.usnews.com/financial-advisors/articles/advising-clients-on-using-a-backdoor-roth-ira
https://bmmagazine.co.uk/business/the-plight-of-recent-whistleblowers/
https://www.hometownstation.com/tag/victor-carlstrom
https://bmmagazine.co.uk/business/victor-carlstrom-from-a-list-to-asylum-seeker/
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN21K11S/
https://casetext.com/case/carlstrom-v-livforsakring-1
https://tass.com/press-releases/1101627
https://mlexmarketinsight.com/news/insight/swedbank-secures-dismissal-of-self-styled-whistleblower-s-us-lawsuit
If Wikipedia was a credible source of information, some admins would block all the account who participated in the coordinated attack to delete Victor Carlstrom's page since it's very obvious all this accounts it's the left wing media journalist accounts, the same people who protect the powerful people Victor Carlstrom sued and same people who suppress the case.
By reading court documents we clearly know this case has happened, therefor it's the same as a scandal happens about very powerful people and some media don't report about it, then people say only because the media didn't report it never happen. But the scandal still happened how much power and money the people in power might have.
I screen record this request to delete Victor Carlstrom's page and it will serve as a schoolbook example later why Wikipedia should not be trusted. Rionass (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The standard for inclusion is higher than just proving something exists, court documents do not count towards Notability. The standard is "in depth coverage" in third party reliable sources (again, reputable ones). Draken Bowser (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 articles in credible sources approved by Wikipedia and written by very credible Gavin Wax, President of the Republican Party in New York and Donald Trump's right hand man.
On top of that the facts in the article is supported by 108 court fillings with thousands of court documents from federal court in New York and courts of appeals.
Cased closed the Wikipedia page about Victor Carlstrom should stay up and not be deleted.
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11569/528545
https://townhall.com/columnists/gavinwax/2022/07/27/the-untold-story-on-why-turkey-is-keeping-sweden-and-finland-out-of-nato-n2610833
https://www.newsmax.com/gavinwax/globalism-fraud-sweden/2021/02/16/id/1010228/
https://www.newsmax.com/amp/gavinwax/sweden-turkey-drugtrafficking/2021/06/24/id/1026328/ Rionass (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the facts. Victor Carlstrom has two things make him reach the standard of notability without any doubt.
1. First Swedish person with asylum in America. Same category as Edward Snowden. This is a very big deal.
2. Filed the largest lawsuit in Sweden's history, a lawsuit of 4,2 billion dollar against Swedish authorities, Swedish banks and the elite of power in Sweden.
Both this facts are described in 3 credible articles in 2 news outlets approved by Wikipedia. The article is written by the president of Republican Party in New York and Donald Trump's right hand man Gavin Wax.
The facts in the articles is also supported by 108 court fillings with thousands of court documents. Case closed, the Wikipedia page should not be deleted.
Then it's very obvious what happened here. Victor Carlstrom's has been a strong critics against the Swedish media monopoly with Bonnier and Schibsted controlling the Swedish media. And the defendants in this case did a "catch and kill" with the case which is they paid Bonnier and Schibsted in some way to over up the case for the people of Sweden. Bonnier and Schibsted has hundreds of accounts on Wikipedia try to controlling the narrative and some of this accounts attacking this page, because they need to do that to keep cover up the case for the public of Sweden.
That's why I said if Wikipedia was a credible source of information, any admin should go in and block all account's want to delete Victor Carlstrom's Wikipedia page since it would be to clean the house of fraudulent and very bias account on Wikipedia, responsible for a lot of coverups and painting wrong narratives to the public, such as Covid came from a bat in Wuhan.
Links below supporting every word I just wrote.
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11569/528545
https://townhall.com/columnists/gavinwax/2022/07/27/the-untold-story-on-why-turkey-is-keeping-sweden-and-finland-out-of-nato-n2610833
https://www.newsmax.com/gavinwax/globalism-fraud-sweden/2021/02/16/id/1010228/
https://www.newsmax.com/amp/gavinwax/sweden-turkey-drugtrafficking/2021/06/24/id/1026328/
All facts support the Wikipedia page should not be deleted and restored. Rionass (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Court filings don't count towards notability. The monetary amount is of no interest, this is America, you could sue almost anyone for any amount. Also, Newsmax is not considered reliable (see WP:NEWSMAX), and Townhall is not considered reliable for news reporting.
He might be in the same category as Snowden, but the lack of reliable news sources proves that he is of no relative importance and as of now not notable. He could become notable in the future should the lawsuit gain traction and media attention, but it is not the role of an encyclopedia to predict the future. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, at least two of the sources are not news articles, but opinion pieces. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Victor Carlstrom's could be the largest whistleblower in the financial industrial complex by all time. In court documents it's reveals he cooperating with prosecutors in the Southern District of New York the most credible and fearful prosecutors on Mother Earth.
The fact this person blew the whistle on something he claims is the largest money laundering scheme in history and also something he provide very credible evidence of at his Instagram and Twitter for his millions of followers, where both accounts has been verified with blue check mark for years since I follow him I know the story well, and it's a huge story and I believe it will grow over time.
It's also clear in the court documents he has strike some deal with the prosecutors in the Southern District and by this article in NewsMax it confirms he are in a witness protection program today and live in America under a new name.
https://www.newsmax.com/gavinwax/banking-reform/2023/04/10/id/1115604/
He also have news coverage under the name Victor X.
It's very clear by this case when someone become a whistleblower against the elite and people in power who controls the media and Wikipedia they control for sure they do all in their power to erase someone's name on the internet.
But in this case Victor Carlstrom got news from sources credible and approved by Wikipedia, articles which make this page legit and should not be deleted. Everyone knows the reason Wikipedia have negative opinions about NewsMax and Townhall is because Wikipedia is ruled by the far left and New York Times would get exact same words if the far right would rule Wikipedia, for all the conspiracy theories New York Times have written and spread over the years.
Facts, the story and the news articles supported by court documents all support Victor Carlstrom's Wikipedia should not be deleted and remain on Wikipedia. Rionass (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly it's very scary how biased and not credible Wikipedia is and this case is exactly why Wikipedia should not be used as a source for information.
To delete Victor Carlstrom's Wikipedia maybe the largest whistleblower by all time in finance. Would be the same as Joe Biden blow up Donald Trump's plane and Trump dies. Only right wing media writes about it and left wing/main stream media aka Fake News suppress the story as we see in Russia for example when bad things happened. Then Wikipedia use the facts no main stream media/fake news reported about Donald Trump plane was blown up and he died and on Wikipedia you can read Donald Trump is still alive flying around in his Trump plane.
I know this example is to stretch it but my point is only because the fake news don't write about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's exactly the scenario we see here why some people definitely in connected to the fake news want to delete Victor Carlstrom's Wikipedia page.
Will be very interesting to see if they succeed or if Wikipedia manage to stand up against the fake news narrative, they desperately try to push in to people's throats. Rionass (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine or whatever, but you need to stop with the personal attacks – as if arguing for deletion could only be explained by us being on the deep state payroll or part of a rabid wokeist conspiracy. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If your best arguments for keeping are primary sources (court documents) and articles by Newsmax, a notoriously unreliable publication, there is no basis on which to write a neutral article and the topic is not notable. Sandstein 07:56, 17 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! 06:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mjölby Turabdin FC[edit]

Mjölby Turabdin FC (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, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte (talk) 07:01, 10 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! 06:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BK Saturnus[edit]

BK Saturnus (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, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 5th tier. Geschichte (talk) 07:01, 10 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! 06:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norrköpings IF Bosna[edit]

Norrköpings IF Bosna (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, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 5th tier. Geschichte (talk) 06:59, 10 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! 06:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Hill KF[edit]

Blue Hill KF (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, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte (talk) 06:58, 10 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! 06:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Hockey[edit]

Major League Hockey (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 pass WP:GNG. The only reliable source I can find is this, but all the rest are just unreliable outlets. ToadetteEdit! 06:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination, all I could find online about this proposed league is social media and blogs posts. This source, the only inline reference in the article at the moment, is a press release posted to Mega Marine Ship Machinery Parts in Gujarat, India, suggesting undisclosed paid editing. Wikishovel (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey, Canada, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is about all there is in a semi-RS [59], otherwise all I find is PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:SPORTSKEEDA, that's "generally unreliable". Wikishovel (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been reported by many reputable sources in the hockey community, including Steve Dangle and Allan Walsh. https://twitter.com/walsha/status/1788751235085996514 Ericringo (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mmhmm. For my part, any claim that some fly-by-night startup league could conceivably contemplate a salary cap of $30 million, or to pay each player an average of $2.1 m, not only makes this a GNG violation but bumps up hard against WP:BULLSHIT. This is just not credible, and I want a lot better proof of notice by "reputable sources in the hockey community" than a broken Twitter link. Ravenswing 00:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the subject does not meet the notability criteria; the amount of coverage isn't "significant". There's a single full-fledged report on the topic (the Dangle video, which has since been retracted); everything else is tweets by journalists. Furthermore, a claim as big as this warrants more reliable sources than a single report made by someone who is, respectfully, not a seasoned journalist. This plainly doesn't warrant an article. I don't think one can even recommend "draftify"; considering the paucity of sources, even the claim "not notable yet, but likely to become so in the near future" is generous. HeyArtemis (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HeyArtemis - the Dangle video was the primary source of information, and he's since retracted it, suggesting doubt as to the legitimacy of the league. The Kip 15:15, 12 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! 07:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Albert[edit]

Richard L. Albert (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)

Lacks significant coverage, though his company Design Projects is an extremely generic name. No possible redirect as his company does not have an article. He seems to have worked mostly on B movies. —KaliforniykaHi! 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Design Projects Incorporated was formed on February 10, 1978 in California, (see https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business) and was closed on June 1, 1994.
Design Projects first client was Universal Pictures, and also did advertising, design and packaging for 20th Century Fox, Warner Home Video, Columbia Pictures, as well as international distributors, starting with Best International Films and Producers Sales Organizations, and including Goldcrest and ad campaigns for Sanrio Films while they had a Los Angeles branch office.
It also created ad campaigns for many independent film distributors, such as Group One, New World, Film Ventures International. We also
Prior to 1978, I worked as a freelance designer for Universal Pictures, Filmways, as well as Universal Music.
Richard Albert RLA2024 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG with zero evidence of notability. Promotional article created by a single-purpose/COI account with no viable coverage at all (search turned up mostly an architectural firm with a similar name). Heck, the only source cited therein doesn't even mention the subject nor his company. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 18:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Article lacks solid sources, lacks evidence of notability. Edit history suggests massive COI problem. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:33, 17 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. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let m know or make a request at WP:REFUND Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sohaib Al-Malkawi[edit]

Sohaib Al-Malkawi (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:NJOURNALIST. Couldn't find any articles or independent information about him online. The article is mostly puffery. Probably a COI - draftifying might be an alternative, though I can't find any coverage about him at all. Clearfrienda 💬 02:14, 3 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! 03:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is full on a promotional article, and if no sources can be found it should be axed. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didn't want to write here since I wrote the article. Anyway, I wanted to draw attention to the fact that since he's an Arabic figure when you search for him in Arabic (صهيب ملكاوي), you will find many sources. From a promotional standpoint, I admit that the article contains some promotional words, which I have now deleted. In terms of notability, I see that he fulfills the first rule. He is seen as an important figure or widely cited by his peers or successors. This is an interview of his on YouTube that shows it, and here's another one. According to RanksArabia, a website that ranks according to the votes of the Arab public, Suhaib Al-Malkawi is ranked 30th among the best Arab media professionals, and 24th among the best broadcasters and program presenters on Al Jazeera. He is one of the most prominent broadcasters on a channel considered to be one of the largest channels in the Arab world. Clearfrienda mentioned that "Probably a COI" . This is a bad assumption. For some time now, I have been writing and contributing articles about important Arabic figures, poems, places... etc, here in the encyclopedia, there is a similarity with the family names. Malkawi99 (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: probably meets G11, nothing found that meets WP:SIRS.  // Timothy :: talk  13:08, 15 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Rogers[edit]

Leigh Rogers (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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. within the past few days) and fails to address WP:GNG in his nominations. Regardless, 50 AfDs in 30 minutes is wholly inappropriate. JTtheOG (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator comment: You're the one who de-prodded all of my nominations, so you don't get to complain now that they're at AFD, which is where nominations go when the PROD has been removed. Add to that your bad faith aspersions. A disagreement as to what qualifies as "significant coverage" is not evidence of bypassing anything. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep, per JTtheOG. Additionally, I'm not aware of a rule that prohibits an editor who de-PRODs an article from participating in AfD discussions about that article. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:30, 15 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hirofumi Torii[edit]

Hirofumi Torii (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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This user has nominated 49 different figure skaters for deletion within approximately 30 mins which leaves me doubting that a WP:BEFORE search has been conducted, let alone one that includes native language sources. DCsansei (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator comment: As stated in the nomination, these were all PRODs that were deprodded in rapid succession. My work on these nominations took place before the PROD, not last night when I sent them to AFD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. within the past week) and fails to address WP:GNG in his nominations. Regardless, 50 AfDs in 30 minutes is wholly inappropriate. JTtheOG (talk) 00:17, 11 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 03:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Timmins[edit]

Dean Timmins (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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:50, 10 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 03:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Naphtal[edit]

Emily Naphtal (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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:39, 10 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. The commenters make a good point that the nominator's actions do not reflect due diligence when considering then nominating this for deletion. No support for deletion has appeared. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akiko Kitamura[edit]

Akiko Kitamura (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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Japan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This user has nominated 49 different figure skaters for deletion within approximately 30 mins which leaves me doubting that a WP:BEFORE search has been conducted, let alone one that includes native language sources. DCsansei (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator comment: As stated in the nomination, these were all PRODs that were deprodded in rapid succession. My work on these nominations took place before the PROD, not last night when I sent them to AFD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. within the past week) and fails to address WP:GNG in his nominations. Regardless, 50 AfDs in 30 minutes is wholly inappropriate. JTtheOG (talk) 00:17, 11 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eliot Halverson[edit]

Eliot Halverson (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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per failing WP:NSKATE. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep sources include three newspapers of record, meets WP:GNG even if not WP:NSKATE.
    Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. within the past week) and fails to address WP:GNG in his nominations. Regardless, 50 AfDs in 30 minutes is wholly inappropriate. JTtheOG (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject easily meets the WP:GNG with sources already in the article such as #2 and #4, in addition to [[60]]. Let'srun (talk) 12:58, 11 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! 02:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristine Y. Lee[edit]

Kristine Y. Lee (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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:26, 10 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 14:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Software industry in Madurai[edit]

Software industry in Madurai (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 see a reason why this article should exist -- none of the sources (that aren't broken) talk about the software industry in Madurai as a broader trend. This failed a PROD for being potentially notable, but absent any evidence to support that potential, I think this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Poor sources. 5 sources on the page and 3 of them have absolutely nothing on the subject and the other 2 about "Oracle planning to open a new center" and the other is about "building an IT park". No sources on the page have any coverage on the subject and does not warrant a page due to failure to pass WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:56, 15 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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Spackman[edit]

Isaac Spackman (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 notability guidelines and has no significant coverage. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think I have added sufficient refs to bring this up to notable. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree. He satisfies WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 11:34, 14 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! 00:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gong Mun-chol[edit]

Gong Mun-chol (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:31, 10 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! 00:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Kuk-chol (footballer, born 1999)[edit]

Kang Kuk-chol (footballer, born 1999) (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:28, 10 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! 00:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Jong-chol[edit]

Kang Jong-chol (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:26, 10 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! 00:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Hyun-su[edit]

Kang Hyun-su (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:21, 10 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! 00:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jang Phyong-il[edit]

Jang Phyong-il (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination, also fails WP:NSPORT. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:10, 10 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_10&oldid=1224529436"