Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 10 May 12 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Shtein[edit]

Lucy Shtein (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)

Too small and insignificant Russian politician and activist. Significance according to WP:POLITICS is not observed.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Politics, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article in the Economist (cited on the article) is extended coverage of Shtein. I also find mentions of her in the New York Times, the Guardian, and the Washington Post. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with DaffodilOcean. Clearly establishes WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Extended significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources already cited in the article at the time of commenting—the Economist, the Guardian, the New York Times—demonstrate fulfillment of the general notability guideline. WP:NPOL is a guide for when a person is presumed to be notable, but people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject has been shown to be notable, she has received significant coverage in independent sources. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:45, 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 redirect‎ to COPIM. which is the page title for the article about Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Book Collective[edit]

Open Book Collective (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 page may not meet Wikipedia's notability; perhaps - redirect to Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs BoraVoro (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @BoraVoro for your suggestion to delete this page. Maybe to share some details around why I thought it might be good to have a separate page on the Open Book Collective - this Open Access platform and community has been developed out of the Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs project, but as the COPIM project has ended and the Open Book Collective itself has matured and now is its own legal entity, I thought it might make more sense to have a separate entry for that initiative. I agree that the current state of the page is still rudimentary, but my hope is that this will be soo growing to include more detailed information around key collaborations, etc. in the space of non-profit OA book publishing, so would be grateful if this could be given space here on Wikipedia going forward. Thanks so much for your consideration, and all best, Flavoursofopen (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you @Flavoursofopen for your passion and work. I'm not entirely in favor of deletion at this point. I am open to changing or withdrawing my vote. BoraVoro (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I added a stub tag to the page. Looking over the coverage of the Open Book Collective on the web, it appears notable enough but the article is just starting and does need work. In this case we should follow Wikipedia's policy of improving an article rather than deleting it.WP:EDITING Myotus (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A prior "no consensus" closure was vacated per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 28. This can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 18:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom. I could not find anything beyond the resources cited here which are authored by persons from the project's institutions (well, other than the UK gov entry and that is a factual register including all NGOs). These sources could be included to support facts, but they do not support notability. Lamona (talk) 04:25, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(This discussion is) Off the Record[edit]

(This discussion is) Off the Record (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)

Before search revealed little results outside of sources already in article (passing mention in variety), fr-wiki article has little else to offer too. Someone should search in dutch but subject might not have another name based off filmfonds.nl source in article. (pinging Mushy Yank de-prodded) Justiyaya 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Police, Internet, and Netherlands. Justiyaya 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping and note. I deproDed the page because I believed that what is said in Screen Daily (although presented in an interview, and brief) + screening/nomination would make an Afd more suitable. It's probably not enough. The film/piece/project are covered partially elsewhere, but it's hard to say if the IDFA grant is significant enough or if what IDFA says about the film can be considered independent. There are the Variety and BDE mentions (see above and article); Yahoo News has a similar mention; there's other overage that might be judged significant and independent about the work:
  1. Then back to the algorithmic crime prevention Nirit Peled delved into. Not a futuristic AI fantasy, but something already very concrete. The latter also applies to the performance inspired by it (this conversation is) Off the Record. In front of a room full of audience, a police officer (actor Janneke Remmers, with texts from real interviews) and human rights lawyer Jelle Klaas explain both sides of this stigmatising technique. Concluding with Peled wondering where empathy has gone, and why the algorithm's checklist does not look at the children's positive traits. They have all been given a digital copy of themselves, but where have they themselves gone? At that moment, it slowly starts to become clear how we can see this beautiful animation with figures wandering across a hall-wide screen. They are people, youngsters no doubt, but all wonderfully distorted. Towards the end, one slowly comes closer and closer, and behind that bizarre, digitally animated mask I thought I could actually see a pair of children's eyes. An unexpectedly touching moment. It just makes the thought that we could all be relegated to digital files all the more oppressive. in Cultuurpeers
  2. Filmmaker Nirit Peled will introduce her extensive investigative research into the development of crime prevention algorithms in Amsterdam. Peled converts information, which is otherwise invisible, or simply incomprehensible, into narratives and images. Through her forthcoming documentary film Moeders and performative lecture Off the Record she offers a vivid account of the lived experiences and emotions of mothers whose sons have been impacted by algorithmic policing. (Fotodok)

All in all (and maybe there's more), I'd rather keep this, but that's just me. There's no page about the artist so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Yahoo News page duplicates the variety article I put in the nomination. I haven't seen the other two before but I don't think fotodok would be independent or significant as it appears to be from a bio of the artist.
The Cultuurpeers page looks reasonably reliable and gives a fine amount coverage. Let's see we could get another source. Justiyaya 04:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Zero coverage for this film project. The Fr wiki article is tagged for notability and it relies on mostly primary sources, so not really meeting requirements there either. I can't see anything that is in a RS; the blurb above is a brief mention. Oaktree b (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not independently notable. gidonb (talk) 18:07, 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! 21:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Lunn[edit]

Connor Lunn (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) 14:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:31, 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! 22:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The first source explained above is the better one, the second is only a brief profile. I don't find anything we'd use, mostly statistics on various sites. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we require in-depth coverage for the general notability guidelines, all we have for Connor Lunn is some statistics. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:48, 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 speedy delete‎. WP:G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://websterathletics.com/sports/2008/1/8/GORLOKHISTORY.aspx) — CactusWriter (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gorlok[edit]

Gorlok (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)

My gosh what a mess. There are literally ZERO references. Okmrman (talk) 22:50, 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. Owen× ☎ 07:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Goindval[edit]

Battle of Goindval (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)

Another one of these poorly sourced pages that fail WP:HISTRS, many primary sources that could also categorize under WP:RAJ. Noorullah (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Primary sources that were earlier indicated have been removed and the work is not mirroring others, the article looks decent and is sourced well and has been cleaned up nicely and can stay as per WP:HEY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festivalfalcon873 (talk • contribs) 2024-05-11 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please add your signature to any comments in an AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment by Festivalfalcon873 , thank you , I will do this from now on. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- The article is still littered with plenty of old sources that are not WP:RS. There is nothing "cleaned up" besides the removal of one primary source which does not account for all the other sources that mentioned above, are poor in quality. [4] Noorullah (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not use a single WP:RAJ source and contains mostly scholarly sources, now coming to your assessment of reliability. Your nominations are not dependent upon constructive criticism or from a neutral standpoint. You did not identify upon which sources you think are unreliable, the sources that are being used are more then WP:RS such as Hari Ram Gupta, however your criticism or nominations do not come from neutral standpoint.  For ex: if a source fits your narrative it becomes reliable, if a source does not fit your narrative then it’s deemed unreliable. This article should stay as per WP:HEY as the sources currently being used such as Hari Ram Gupta , Ganda Singh are universally approved scholars.
—Festivalfalcon873 Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was using WP:RAJ sources until you REMOVED them, not sure why you are presenting it as if they weren't here in the first place. [5]
Hari Ram Gupta is a reliable source, but he does not mention it as a "Sikh victory", nor mentions anything about looting, or how many prisoners were relieved as shown here. [6]
Moving on to other sources... You cite Mehta, yet on page 302, there's no mention of such a battle at all? Why are you citing from books that don't mention such a thing? [7]
Gopal Singh is a primary source, and is not scholarly at all. The rest of the sources are unreliable that fail WP:HISTRS, many of the individuals not being historians either. Noorullah (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, reliable sources don't even call this the "Battle of Goindval" as Southasian showed above, there's no instance of this being a battle. Noorullah (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-- First, the issue of being Wikipedia:RAJbeing present is fixed, as this has been removed. This should not be any issue as pointed out initially.
- Second, Hari Ram Gupta mentions clearly on pg 168, “At the ferry of Goindwal on the Beas the Sikhs are said to have relieved the invader of a number of captives, who were afterwards sent to their homes” citing sources such as Shamshir Khalsa pg105 ,( https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfTheSikhsVol.IiEvolutionOfSikhConfederacies1707-69/page/n184/mode/1up) this source, as you pointed out is a WP:RS. During this battle, the objective (releasing captives) was complete & thus a victory. Similarly in the book Ahmad Shah Durrani (1959) by Singh Ganda ,pg 264, “No sooner did the Shah enter the Panjab than the Sikhs, as usual, began to harry him during his march. Under the command of Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, they surprised the Afghans at the ferry of Goindwal, on the right bank of the Beas, and succeeded in releasing from their clutches as many as two thousand and two hundred women captives, who were restored by them to their homes.” (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.503016/page/n292/mode/1up) Similarly this source is also citing from same Shamshir Khalsa pg105 , mentioning the numbers and quoting of the Sikhs succeeding (victory) in completing their objective. Both are scholarly sources which are citing factual evidence.
- Third, you made a mistake that Mehta did not cite this occurrence. Mehta both showed this occurrence and spoke of Sikhs making their attack and succeeding in their objective of releasing captives. Now let me show you, from Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 page 302, “They made a surprise attack on the Afghan camp in strength at the ferry of Goindwal on the Beas and secured the liberation of a large number of the Maratha captives, who were being held by the Afghans as enslaved labourers for the carriage of their baggage to Afghanistan; they were subsequently sent to their homes in the south with suitable provisions.” Here is the clear factual description of the battle or occurrence which is being written but you deny for your own personal viewpoints. You pointed out further that it does not talk about looting , now going back to Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 pg302 by Mehta it perfectly describes the looting occurred, “ Nevertheless, they pounced upon the staggerers and carried away their booty and the baggage along with their horses all the same”. (https://books.google.com/books?id=d1wUgKKzawoC&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=%22Nevertheless,+they+pounced+upon+the+staggerers+and+carried+away+their+booty+and+the+baggage+along+with+their+horses+all+the+same%22&source=bl&ots=HOSZf38kUl&sig=ACfU3U080Q5ItKoniFa0n5ysIrLIUaEKyg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi72fXMwImGAxWJIDQIHb0pDLIQ6AF6BAgUEAI#v=onepage&q&f=false) Therefore your statement on both things your pointed is factually incorrect.
- Fourth, again you made a mistake. Dr. Gopal Singh is a scholarly source and as noted here (https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Gopal_Singh) whose work has been lauded by other scholars and literary figures including Nobel laureate Pearl Buck , who is onpar in credibility to that of J.S Grewal and Hari Gupta which are more then WP:RS.
-Even prominent historians & scholars such as Ganda Singh agree in the book Jassa Singh Auliwalia on pg 106 that this battle attack which occurred on Goindwal was successful , “Therefore, S. Jassa Singh drew his sword and taking a few selected Singhs with him reiched Goindwal and attacked the Durranis when they were crossing the river ; even before they could imagine what had happened, he freed the bonded women. He gave them pocket expenses and sent them to their respective places. This sympathy and bravery made S. Jassa Singh famous in the length and breadth of the entire country, and his valour and selfless service became a household word, and he became famous as a Liberator of bonded women.” ( https://apnaorg.com/books/english/sardar-jassa-singh-ahluwalia/sardar-jassa-singh-ahluwalia.pdf). Therefore the credibility of this event should be accepted by the reviewer of this discussion.
- If there are further issues or concerns that need to be fixed , such as unreliable sources or issues in the article, then it is the job of the nominator to point them out and identify them and describe them. However, to generalize something because you don’t agree with it based mostly on personal reasons, such as not personally agreeing with an author, then is not suitable for the platform on Wikipedia. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but please follow WP:KEEPCONCISE. See Wikipedia:Wall of text. I'm not going to read that but here's instead the main point I'm driving. The title of this page is completely WP:OR, no sources mention it as a "battle of Goinvdal".Noorullah (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, notable reliable historians such as Mehta, Hari Ram Gupta and Ganda Singh and Saggu have noted this place , Goindwal, was where the occurrence of the attack took place. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this OR. Those sources do not call it the battle of Goindval. Wikipedia is not the place to name events. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Sikh Invasion of Rohilkhand[edit]

Second Sikh Invasion of Rohilkhand (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)

Unreliable sources per WP:HISTRS, many primary sources as well. Noorullah (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 2 primary sources mentioned, and the authors I cited are historians who aswell proved the event that happened the deletion is unnessecary. Alvin1783 (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep argument here so Soft Deletion is not appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 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! 03:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enid Rivera[edit]

Enid Rivera (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 subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG; the only hits I found were for unrelated people. Article already had a removed PROD, so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 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! 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Asher[edit]

Levi Asher (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:AUTHOR. Per a WP:BEFORE, failed to find independent RS that would establish notability. None of the included sources are independent or SIGCOV, with 4 coming from a website the subject maintains and 1 an op-ed from the author. Almost 2/3 of the article has been written by Asheresque, likely a COI account. Longhornsg (talk) 22:38, 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 redirect‎ to Grand Valley State University#Mascot. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louie the Laker[edit]

Louie the Laker (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)

Doesn't seem to be notable, sources seem to come from GVSU and that only amounts to like 2 sources. Okmrman (talk) 23:14, 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! 22:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CactusWriter Parts of it seem to be directly copied
https://web.archive.org/web/20110515133533/http://www.gvsulakers.com/genrel/012103aad.html Okmrman (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was copied, but the copyvio has been removed and revision deletion applied. -- Whpq (talk) 03:10, 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 merge‎ to Progressive Democrats of America#History. Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Segal[edit]

Joel Segal (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. No WP:SIGCOV by independent RS that justify an article in the 15 years that this article has existed. Per a WP:BEFORE, the only thing resembling any sort of coverage is this profile on an activist group's website. Longhornsg (talk) 22:14, 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. Surprised to see a consensus to Keep this article as most of the other articles on sports broadcasting for events that have been brought to AFD have resulted in Deletions. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA March Madness commentary crews for CBS/TNT Sports[edit]

List of NCAA March Madness commentary crews for CBS/TNT Sports (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:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list 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. As with sources per WP:RS, most of these are WP:PRIMARY. Of the three remaining sources two of them is dead and one is nothing but listings and announcments, doing nothing to establish notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, and Basketball. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: These crews get covered as a group in secondary sources such as [[8]], [[9]], [[10]] [[11]] and [[12]] (not to mention that these sources were just on the first page of results of a quick internet search). I'd say it passes the WP:LISTN criteria and I'm not sure what part of WP:NOTDATABASE the nom thinks this violates (or WP:NOTTVGUIDE, since this isn't covering a broadcast schedule). The current sources are mostly primary, but that is not a reason to delete any article on its own when secondary sources are shown to exist. Let'srun (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found by Let'srun. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I figured when we get up to the most notable sporting events in the US that we would get more WP:SIGCOV. The article does need to be trimmed, but the sources provided by Let'srun suffice for WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 05:06, 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 Bangladesh Road Transport Corporation. as an ATD, closure was based in large part on the source analysis. Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BRTC AC Bus Dhaka–Narayanganj[edit]

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

It was notability tagged, and I thought of PRODing it first. Anyway, It is a road transportation route of some AC bus service, which typically does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines unless it holds significant historical, cultural, or geographical importance. This specific route, while serving as a bus service between two cities, lacks the requisite significance to warrant a separate article.

Articles on individual bus services, particularly those of routine nature, are not within the scope of Wikipedia, as it is not a platform for travelogue content. The current article predominantly consists of mundane details such as launch dates, owners names, ticket prices, etc. without notable incidents or historical relevance.

While media coverage exists for this route and this bus service, it primarily comprises routine or trivial news items, failing to establish the bus service's notability beyond its basic function. X (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Bangladesh. Owen× ☎ 22:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The statement that articles on individual bus services are not within the scope of Wikipedia is plainly untrue as there are many such well-sourced articles on the wiki. The nomination seems to be making an assumption that this article should be deleted based on its subject matter. There are several sources on the article, I think we need more details on why each of these do not contribute towards establishing notability. Garuda3 (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Garuda3, No, the "nomination is not simply just an assumption based on its subject matter." I know there are many articles on bus services. I explicitly said that unless it holds significant historical, cultural, or geographical importance, such as London–Calcutta bus service. Sure, some bus services may become notable for other reasons.
    But this article, however, do not show any ground for notability other than its basic functioning's routine coverage, and the article is filled of mundane details. Nothing beyond that exists in the article other than those run-of-the-mill coverages.
    Here's my evaluation of the sources. (I'm a native speaker of Bengali).
  1. BDnews24, Reliable pub. The scheduled and planned coverage is based on the inaugural ceremony attended by MPs and top level officials of the bus company, and other VIPs. It falls under routine coverage.
  2. Same pub, based on probable press release by the city's Nagarik Committee (Citizen Alliance). Brief coverage about them demanding a bus service to be started for this route. Mentions who said what, who were present, etc.
  3. Local mere online news portal, narayanganjbarta24, reliability is not confirmed. Doesn't count as a Significant coverage. Relays the statement of the Bus company's official regarding the announced inaugural of the service and the schedule of the event.
  4. Naya Diganta, major pub. The coverage is also routine, and it's mentioned within the article that this is based on the statement/press release of an official "sharing with much joy that the service on this route will be inaugurated on this day and when and who'll be present, etc."
  5. Same pub, the only article here that's not based on press release or centered around press briefings. However, it's mere routine coverage about some syndicate trying to counter the establishment of a bus ticket counter there. And lists several officials and police's statements/briefings. Wikipedia is not news
  6. The News Narayanganj, crummy local unreliable online news website. Reports on despite the strikes by other transportation owners due to price hike of fuel, this bus owners are still carrying their service. And lists several people's statements.
  7. Ekushey television, major TV station. A very brief report noting the ticket cost reduction of the bus service, relaying the statement of the bus depot's manager.
Note that not a single of these sources have a proper byline. Although WP:RSNOI mainly concerns coverage about people, or brands/companies, but still in this case, gives an idea these coverages are nothing more than routine news event based on either press releases or statements by officials on scheduled events. No significant independent, in-depth coverage exists that show's the service is notable outside its basic functions. X (talk) 23:31, 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 Jackson Wang. Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slow (Jackson Wang & Ciara song)[edit]

Slow (Jackson Wang & Ciara song) (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 release. Although it got a music video, there doesn't appear to be enough coverage per WP:GNG , additionally it did not chart, was not subject to considerable critical reception etc. so does not pass notability per WP:NSONGS. Could be redirected to Jackson Wang >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Stracher[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR, or to otherwise have the necessary in depth coverage in independent sources required to meet general notability requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Law, and Politics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iowa, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication that this attorney himself is notable. He was once general counsel for a notable company; and represented that company in negotiating agreements that related to notable people; but nothing indicates that the attorney himself is notable. The closest thing to it is the WSJ article, but it's not really close at all; the WSJ article is not about the attorney himself, and merely sets out his involvement in a larger story as routine news coverage of that story. TJRC (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks sufficient coverage for notability. agtx 01:41, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EFOSMO[edit]

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

This article has many issues. If I understand correctly, EFOSMO is a proposed model that was presented in two academic papers that were published in several journals across the globe. Nothing further happened with the proposed model so I conclude that the subject does not meet WP:GNG and the article should be deleted. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusty4321 talk contribs 19:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Cannot find any sources outside of the two papers that invent the term. I also note that the article was created by User:EFOSMO so was probably intended as promotion of the concept or term. Lamona (talk) 04:42, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biography work[edit]

Biography work (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 not able to discern what the topic is here. The article seems to be an unsourced essay, not to mention very over-capitalized. Is there a notable topic here that someone can point out so we can fix it, or should we just delete it? Dicklyon (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe this is a western esotericism philosophical concept. I see some journal sources describing "biographical work", but they appear to be talking about different concepts. Maybe there are sources for this, but I'm leaning delete as the article is too incoherent to properly describe what it's about. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is mainly the work of two WP:SPAs, Neckarpro in 2011 and Biographyworker in 2016–17, who edited nowhere but this article. I don't how it has survived until now. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unable to discern the topic, seems to have some weird link spam thing going on at the bottom. Queen of Hearts (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Fringe concept based on(?) anthroposophy that's not independently notable enough for its own article. The 'literature' at the bottom is also just cruft. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia does expose quackery. That's why in quackery topics I lean for keep. This article is typical for Anthroposophical articles, which do applaud the practice for many claimed merits, but never explicitly tell what the practice really is. Like what biography work is and how it's done (i.e. its method) should remain a secret. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if you aren't really, really, REALLY interested in esotericism, this will be patent nonsense to you. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:52, 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 redirect‎ to List of Canada national rugby union players. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Trenkel[edit]

Nick Trenkel (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)

Redirect to List of Canada national rugby union players as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was a few sentences here from his high school football days. JTtheOG (talk) 18:40, 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! 22:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of athletes who came out of retirement[edit]

List of athletes who came out of retirement (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)

An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of sportspeople who 'retire' for various reasons undisclosed in this list. It is nothing new to see some of them being dropped by their teams then take a season out and come back, does that mean they have 'retired'? Take this example of Fernando Alonso, he did not retire at all. Despite being without a drive, and despite competing at Le Mans and tried to qualify at Indy in 2019, he was held by his team under contract, then COVID. Alan Jones may had 'retired' but his racing career elsewhere continued through to 2002. Overall, I cannot see how this pass WP:LISTN either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Should I go on? WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Conyo14 (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But I think that list needs fixing. There needs to be a subsection on why some of them have come out of retirement. These reasons can be about money (Niki Lauda), being encouraged to join a new team under familiar teammates (Rob Gronkowski, who retired to avoid being traded off). Do one-offs really count? (Tony Hawk, Dale Jr) - this was part of that reason for that AfD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but that isn't a reason to delete the article entirely. WP:FIXIT applies. Let'srun (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting a section at the start of the article explaining why an athlete might come out of retirement or a narrative for the circumstances of each athlete's retirement and un-retirement? If the latter, you're talking about something that is no longer a list but a full-fledged article. If you want to know more about why the guy retired and/or unretired, you can simply read the player's article or the cited sources. There have been some athletes for whom I added footnotes when their un-retirement was not what we'd think of as a traditional case of an athlete coming out of retirement (e.g. as a publicity stunt, as part of a bet, a player-coach inserting himself into a game, etc.) I think those one-sentence explanations for those strange outlier cases suffices. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. As someone who has contributed to this list (primarily the baseball section) perhaps as significantly as anyone, I have to disagree with your premise. I am always sure to find sources saying that the athlete actually quit and was not simply unemployed or injured for a year. For example, I haven't added Joe Page to the list because I searched diligently and wasn't able to find a source saying he quit. Some of those other sections may need to be better sourced or someone needs to go through and remove those entries which don't fit the actual criteria of the article. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly a notable concept, as noted in the sources provided in this discussion. This is a perfect example of an article which needs cleanup, not deletion. Let'srun (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst I agree that it is a clearly a notable concept. I still think it needs to be in a better quality than this, such as explaining why those sportspoeple retired and came back and remove all one-off comebacks, these are not officially such. I had already removed some questionable ones such as those in motorsport. other than that, I offer to call close to this nomination. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:04, 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. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Quinn (disambiguation)[edit]

Patricia Quinn (disambiguation) (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 need for this dab page, per WP:ONEOTHER. Users can hardly know of its existence since it is not even hatnoted atop Patricia Quinn, where the hatnote only states, "For the American scientist, see Patricia Quinn (atmospheric chemist). For similar names, see Pat Quinn (disambiguation)." If preferred, instead of deletion, Patricia Quinn (disambiguation) can simply exist as a redirect to the Pat Quinn dab page. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It was decided that the British/Irish actress was the primary topic, and the American actress would be better called "Pat Quinn". So this page might be unnecessary, but we do have the two "see also" entries. PatGallacher (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I'm leaning towards the view that these "see also" entries are not enough to justify having this page. PatGallacher (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't really have strong feelings either way, but I am still a little confused. What happened to Patricia Quinn (American actress)? She was lost entirely. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh wait - I see, the American actress is now Pat Quinn, under the see also. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no reason to exclude Patricia Quinn (American actress) from this page, merely because the subject also fits on another page. "Pat" is her common name, "Patricia" is her given name. BD2412 T 19:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pat Quinn (American actress)'s name is Patricia (and the IMDB entry is in that name [20]): there are three entries on the page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did a little digging at newspapers.com and discovered that Patricia Quinn the American actress wanted to be called Patricia, but the producer of her first hit movie didn't like the name and insisted she be called Pat. To me that's enough reason to keep all three names listed on a dab page.[1] DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kleiner, Dick (1970-03-01). "'Watermelon' turns sour". The Journal Times. p. 16. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 College Football on ABC#Personalities. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN College Football personalities[edit]

List of ESPN College Football personalities (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:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list 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. As with sources per WP:RS, most of these are about the game and if they do, barely offering much to establish notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to College Football on ABC#Personalities as an WP:ATD. Agree with nom about everything except WP:NOTTVGUIDE. This is a list of personalities to which I do not see how this would be a tv guide, so that policy is out. I don't find the list covers WP:LISTN exclusively. It's good to return to the main article. Conyo14 (talk) 04:46, 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! 22:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tumhare Husn Ke Naam[edit]

Tumhare Husn Ke Naam (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 TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this or namechecks coverage like is not enough to meet GNG.

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on some ROTM or paid/PR coverage —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Added multiple references which help establish WP:GNG. Google Search yields significant content about the show (free images, references, critic reviews,cast etc). Sameeerrr (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet) S0091 (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sameeerrr, Can you please provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG ? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Why consider only Three sources when articles contains all WP:RS? After removing 4 Non Reliable sources, it does includes 9 Reliable Sources. In aggregate, it establish WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sameeerrr (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sameeerrr, For me and others to determine whether the topic meets GNG, I suggest you provide THREE of the best coverage sources here. It's as simple as that. Nobody will comb through those nine citations to gauge whether this subject meets GNG. Please ensure the THREE coverage sources you provide meet WP:SIRS requirements. This is how AfD functions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No matter which references I'll provide, you'll still have some issues with it. As I don't have any specific interest associated with this article, I had to put across my POV which I did and established it with evidences as well (by adding references). Like I said in WP:AfD for Fatima Feng, I'll leave it to other editors and closing admin to figure out. Take care! Sameeerrr (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sameeerrr, You could've at least attempted to present THREE, just THREE sources, but it seems there aren't any that qualify for GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      All the sources are adequate enough to establish WP:GNG like I said. I wonder if you nominated WP:AfD without evaluating all the sources since you've no idea about the inline citations of the article. Sameeerrr (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So, what's holding you back from providing just THREE here? I've taken over 1000+ articles to AfD, so I know what I'm doing. If I were nominating pages without any rationale, I would have been BLOCKED already. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Your perspective and my perspective regarding WP:GNG differs already. | This, | this and | this, appears to establish WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as well but I won't be shocked if you oppose it. Sameeerrr (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm definitely going to oppose these coverage. I'm not really surprised either that you came up with not only poor coverage but also poor sources like Daily Pakistan to establish GNG. Daily Pakistan is notorious for publishing sensational news stories. And the Dawn News coverage seems to be from an interview, so it's not independent of the subject. Meanwhile, Daily Times looks like a clear paid placements. One can clearly see the style of churnalism writing. Sure, they can be used for WP:V, but for establishing GNG, I'd say NO. Also, you mentioned I have no idea about the inline citations. But the fact is, your grasp of GNG is poor too. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This was the reason I wasn't giving you the best "Three" as I already knew you won't be satisfied. It's a consensus, not a WP:Forum, where we're supposed to decide who's right and who's wrong. IMO all the sources are reliable and establish WP:GNG plus Google search yields alot about the serial (free images, links, reviews from critics etc) as "Find Sources" is appearing on this WP:AfD, there can be more possible references to add in it. As per my grasp of WP:GNG, it clearly meets WP:NTV. If my grasp of WP:GNG was poor, I'd not have nominated shows like Bhagyavidhaata, Aurat (TV series) and voted "Delete" for Chamak Damak as I feel they clearly fails WP:NTV, In comparison to these, this one is thousand times better. I don't want to waste my time on this anymore as I said above, Have a good day! Sameeerrr (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sameeerrr This is not about satisfying Saqib but making a convincing argument to the community. You did do the right thing by starting the WP:RSN#Pakistani Sources discussion to get feedback about some the sources and based my comments and others they are not reliable and/or primary. Also, WP:NTV is an essay, not a guideline so does not enjoy community consensus like WP:GNG. Given you are supporting Keep, I echo Saqib's request for WP:THREE as none of the ones you presented at RSN meet the criteria and based on the sources currently in article, I am seeing casting announcements, articles based on largely what those affiliated and other run-of-the-mill/press release material. The first source would not open for me though so I could not asses that one so please double check the url. If it works for you, then the issue is on my side. S0091 (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • S0091, Oh, thanks for highlighting that WP:NTV is an essay, not a guideline. I must have missed that. So, it means every TV series will need to be assessed based on GNG because we don't have a specific WP:N, right? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless there is a compelling reason another guideline applies (WP:NWEB for example) then GNG is the guideline for TV shows. S0091 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure shot! Then ideally there shouldn't be any article related to Pakistani TV series as all of the shows cite sources from these newspapers and sites. Let me help you in cleaning up such articles then. Sameeerrr (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are tons of articles out there that totally meet WP N , like, you know, Parizaad, Humsafar, Zindagi Gulzar Hai etc, but definitely don't need to have standalone articles on each one of them. This aint directory of Pakistani TV shows. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I know, other than these shows I should start WP:AfD on ideally. I have initiated WP:AfD on a show, will add more tomorrow onwards. Sameeerrr (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sameeerrr sources serve two purposes, verifiability and notability. Primary sources are often fine to use for WP:V like casting announcements, release dates and the like as are secondary reliable sources that do not meet the GNG WP:SIGCOV criteria to support other content. However, at least two sources meeting the four GNG criteria are needed for notability. That is generally the standard for most Wikipedia articles regardless of the topic (exceptions do apply such as WP:NPROF, WP:GEOLAND and WP:NPOL). S0091 (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per my comments above, Sources do not meet WP:GNG. S0091 (talk) 16:01, 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! 22:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Delhi schools bomb threats[edit]

2024 Delhi schools bomb threats (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)

general inconsistency and clumsy structure of the article bordering on WP:CIR, plus non-notable and non-lasting coverage of a news report — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borgenland (talk • contribs) 16:46, 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 merge‎ to College Football on ABC#Personalities. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of College Football on ABC personalities[edit]

List of College Football on ABC personalities (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. Also, this list is mostly unsourced per WP:RS, barring two WP:PRIMARY and a wiki page, none of those asserting notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to College Football on ABC#Personalities as an WP:ATD. Agree with nom about everything except WP:NOTTVGUIDE. This is a list of personalities to which I do not see how this would be a tv guide, so that policy is out. I don't find the list covers WP:LISTN exclusively. It's good to return to the main article. Conyo14 (talk) 04:46, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeevan Nagar[edit]

Jeevan Nagar (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 TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this or namechecks coverage like is not enough to meet GNG.

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on some ROTM or paid/PR coverage —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:38, 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! 22:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladerberg[edit]

Gladerberg (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)

Possible hoax. Orphan. No references. The creator was banned with their talk page cluttered with deleted articles they made. No evidence for the mountain existing (all sources I found are clearly "sourced from Wikipedia"; including Google Maps, which is semi-user generated). No official mapping or biodiversity agency has ever covered it. The coordinates provided are to a slightly elevated hill in Naturpark Reinhardswald, and the official website yields no results when "Gladerberg" is searched (https://www.naturpark-reinhardswald.de/content/search?SearchText=Gladerberg). I'm new here and assuming a "speedy delete" is reserved for emergencies? If so, this is not an emergency. BlueSharkLagoon (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There is a hill called Gahrenberg 12 miles away from the coordinates provided, which the park's official website does confirm exists [21]. For those who don't speak German, the source reads The second highest elevation of the Reinhardswald's forest is the Gahrenberg with 472 m. I think the proposed article is likely a mistranslation/spelling mistake. BlueSharkLagoon (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Not losing a thing by deleting this one. The creator was blocked as a suspect sock puppet account. Online English mentions of Gladerberg refer to this Wikipedia page. — Maile (talk) 20:26, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Feng[edit]

Fatima Feng (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 TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. Couldn't even find ROTM coverage in RS. This page only cites non-RS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - On the basis of following observations;

1. Reference 6 and 7 are potential WP:Reliable Sources with WP:SIGCOV about the show.
2. In addition to above, upon Google search of the title in the local language, I found | BBC news, DAWN and Aaj News references, establishing WP: Notability along with WP:SIGCOV, ideally should be incorporated as the references of the article.
3. On Analytically comparison of article with other television shows which I have initiated a WP:AfD on (Bhagyavidhaata and others), appears to be in line with WP: TVSERIES.Sameeerrr (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]
Sameeerrr, The coverage in The News relying on interview, isn't suitable for establishing GNG, and People Magazine isn't considered a RS. Similarly, coverage in Urdu language outlets like BBC Urdu and DAWN News, also interview-based, isn't adequate for establishing GNG and doesn't meet WP:SIRS either. While these coverage can be used for WP:V, they fall short of meeting GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability (television) sets out references to be primarily WP:Reliable and Independent along with significant coverage.
  • Sources mentioned above are WP:Reliable enough to cover the subject and are WP:Independent of the matter.
  • In WP:GNG, it's clearly stated that, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Sources linked related to BBC News, DAWN, Aaj News aren't merely trivial mentions. They are interviews based on main character and cast member of the show apparently covering the show. Also The News International is a WP:RS where as People Magazine is a weak WP:RS.
All in all, it does establish WP:GNG which is primary criteria as per WP:Notability (television) as per my evaluation, yours can differ. I'll leave it to the other editors to decide the outcome. Sameeerrr (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:GNG, coverage should be significant and independent of the subject. How does interview-based coverage qualify as independent of the subject? I reiterate that such coverage can be utilized for WP:V but not to establish GNG. My concern isn't about the reliability of sources, but rather the type of coverage. Such coverage often falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, as paid placements are common in India as well in Pakistan. Thus, it's advisable to avoid relying on such coverage to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BBC News, DAWN, Aaj News, The News International falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA? Sameeerrr (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears my point isn't coming across clearly. I'm NOT saying these sources themselves aren't unreliable, but the coverage they provide has two issues. Firstly, the coverage is based on interviews, which isn't sufficient to meet GNG . Secondly, there's still the issue of paid placements, as outlets like DAWN and The News fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no conclusive evidence as to supplement your statement regarding WP:NEWSORGINDIA in this case. Hence, it's not appropriate to tag them as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Also I believe the sources you removed, | (this and | this) are WP:RS, merely as per your determination you can't constitute WP:RS in the absence of explicit reliable sources list to assess the reliability mentioned sources. Taking into consideration External Links section, and the mentioned references, article clearly establishes WP:GNG along with WP:SIGCOV.
I would rather not reply anymore cause I've other matters to look into as well. I hope closing admin and other editors will take into consideration the points I've raised over this. Adios! Sameeerrr (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sameeerrr, As @CNMall41: noted here: WP:NEWSORGINDIA could be extended to cover the entire media within Indian subcontinent as Pakistan also has issues of paid media. And as CNMall41 said creating a complete listing of ALL publications that engage in such practices would be exhaustive. See you around! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Someone most probably Sameeerrr (talk · contribs) did this. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's just an LTA who targets AFDs at random. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:24, 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! 22:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daurr[edit]

Daurr (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 TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig./in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this is not enough to meet GNG.

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on some ROTM or paid/PR coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Couldn't find anything substantial on Google search. Sources listed are unreliable majorly.Sameeerrr (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22 Qadam[edit]

22 Qadam (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 TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this is not enough to meet GNG.

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on some ROTM or paid/PR coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:52, 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! 22:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Edmund Williams[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under SNG or GNG. The only source is FamilySearch.org. And it it just very basic obit type info plus a one sentence mention that he was one of the founders of a political party. Tagged for wp:notability by others since December North8000 (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Wales. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The stated notability claim here would be fine if he were reliably sourced as passing WP:GNG for it, but is not an "inherent" notability freebie that would exempt him from having to have any valid sourcing, but the sole footnote here is genealogical information, not GNG-building reliable source coverage about his work in politics. Bearcat (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Helping found a notable party does not in and of itself establish that someone is notable. And that's if it's even true; people have lied about this sort of thing before (see Randy Toler), and the one source cited on the page doesn't exactly help prove it. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 04:54, 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 03:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venus (SiriusXM)[edit]

Venus (SiriusXM) (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:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 15:29, 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! 22:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wally Scharold[edit]

Wally Scharold (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)

Recently restored after a prod deletion, it fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not appear to have serious coverage, and page plastered by "cn" comments. Although, looking at the article history, I think you mean "contested prod" rather than "restored after prod deletion". PatGallacher (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No PatGallacher ... the article was restored after being deleted [22]. Theroadislong (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improvements to citations are ongoing. Please allow some additional time to provide acceptable citations. Thank you. AimlessIdler (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Over a dozen citations added. One is to a bandcamp page which is the only record found for Scharold's membership located. If in violation of bandcamp spam policy it can be removed. The "cn" comments remain, will source these ASAP. Thank you. AimlessIdler (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All "cn" comments resolved with citations. AimlessIdler (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding 6 x YouTube videos is not helful, it is not a reliable independent source. Theroadislong (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: None of the sources are independent or discuss the subject in any capacity beyond mentioning him as a performer/arranger/composer/producer. Reconrabbit 19:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On what basis are you claiming none of the sources are independent? This seems to me to be an over-generalization of all the sources provided. Could you please provide evidence that supports this? Thank you. AimlessIdler (talk) 23:41, 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 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 14:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Composite Technologies[edit]

Aero Composite Technologies (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 companies only notable activity appears to be holding the rights to Quikkit Glass Goose for a short period before going into administration. Searching for them bring no useful results (note there is a separate but similarly named company in Malaysia), and sources about the Quikkit Glass Goose only mention them in passing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:36, 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. (non-admin closure) The noms contention that this was a "run of the mill event" is not accepted. Desertarun (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Abakan Ilyushin Il-76 crash[edit]

AfDs for this article:
1996 Abakan Ilyushin Il-76 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2nd nomination.
No significant lasting effects (demonstrated). Whilst it does have coverage, this is what would be considered a run-of-the-mill event. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep although it has no lasting effects, the number of fatalities is significantly larger than its peers in the afd listings around it. The article itself has multiple issues however and needs extensive work to be fixed. The article indefinitely does not fail Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not however due to the large number of fatalities in this incident. Another thing is that it has a larger count than the 2024 Ivanovo Ilyushin Il-76 crash, standing at 16. These two factors combined can be sought to keep this article in particular. Lolzer3000 (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The event does not have many reliable sources that can be used with the verifiability of sources lacking and doesn't exactly meet WP:GNG, fails WP:INDEPTH due to sources not providing much in depth analysis of the accident. One source used in the page [23], states that it is a first hand account of the accident which makes it a primary source. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And stating that an article should be kept because of another article is not an argument. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An accident with 23 fatalities is definitely not a "common, everyday, ordinary item". Skyshiftertalk 16:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily a "common everyday ordinary item" but controlled flight into terrain accidents are mostly common. Nothing was inherently unusual about the accident that would make it notable on itself. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Considering the number of fatalities along with the value of the cargo on board this is very an accident that is not “common”. Alex Hoe (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please specify what the cargo consisted of that would make this accident notable? As tragic as this accident was, this event doesn't have much notability other than the number of deaths. Other than that, there is basically nothing that gives this accident any enduring significance. The accident has not resulted in any lasting effects nor any long-term impacts. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:38, 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 redirect‎ to Negative (Finnish band). Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antti Anatomy[edit]

Antti Anatomy (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 indication he's notable beyond his band. KaisaL (talk) 13:52, 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 merge‎ to WBNA. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WBNM-LD[edit]

AfDs for this article:
WBNM-LD (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; another diginet coatrack. Could merge with sister station WBNA. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:28, 27 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! 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Might as well say that because couldn’t find any sources. --Danubeball (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [[24]] and [[25]]. If the consensus is not to keep, I'd recommend a merge to WBNA. User:Let'srun 03:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails GNG, nothing in the article or found in BEFORE shows anything meeting WP:SIRS. BEFORE found promo, ads, listings, nothing meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.
Source eval:
Comments Source
Database record of technical station data. Fails WP:SIRS 1. "Facility Technical Data for WBNM-LD". Licensing and Management System. Federal Communications Commission.
TV screen shots, fails WP:SIRS 2. ^ Westerburg, Girard. "FM and TV DX (Analog TV images)". DXFM.com. Lexington, KY. Archived from the original on December 27, 2007. Retrieved September 7, 2019.
Database record 3. ^ "Digital TV Market Listing for WBNM-LD". RabbitEars.info. Retrieved April 20, 2024.

The above two sources are typical of the name mentions found in BEFORE and they do not discuss the subject with SIGCOV directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  17:53, 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 Draftify‎. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Stanaland[edit]

Eugene Stanaland (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)

Contested PROD. Subject fails WP:NPOL as a local politician and WP:NACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG; none of the handful of reliable, secondary, independent sources in the article (or in WP:BEFORE search) pass the WP:SIGCOV test. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Politicians. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as author. I have added more secondary sourcing to back up previous claims, as well as more general information. I believe it covers significant coverage with sources such as Radio World and various newspapers outside the local area. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Draftify as author. I believe there is enough to have it be notable, but I think that I have rushed the publishing of the article. There are newspaper archives I would like to look through, and I believe there should be enough there for it to go through the regular draft review process. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I can agree to that if there are additional sources to be found. Draftify as nominator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is referenced too heavily to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability — and what there is for proper reliable source coverage isn't enough to establish the permanent notability of a person whose notability claims are of purely local rather than nationalized significance. City councillors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show a volume and depth and range of media coverage that marks them out as special cases of much greater significance than most other city councillors, but the sourcing here isn't showing that. Bearcat (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Articles cited are largely from organizations connected to Stanaland or passing mentions. Being a city councilor does not inherently establish notability, and neither does serving as treasurer of a festival "among the ten largest Shakespeare festivals in the world." BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BottleOfChocolateMilk
    I have a question about the sources connected to him, as I have removed some of the more promotional sources. Many of these sources talk about what he spoke about, and basic information. Would it be better to have a source that is specifically about him? The cited unlinked newspaper is, but it’s still more local. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources need to show "significant coverage," not merely be articles that include his name and facts about him. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I'm leaning delete, but the head of Economics at Auburn University is a credible claim towards WP:PROF notability if the head was a full professor with a research career. I'm not finding that, hence the leaning towards delete, but if the author of the article can find sources citing the significance of Dr. Stanaland's research, that could move me towards a keep vote on academic grounds (it's not a WP:NPOL pass by a long shot, I'm afraid) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mscuthbert There are cases of him going on the University’s radio show to discuss economics related things- I haven’t had time to go through them all but he generally discusses the economy, and I know there is stuff on the price of gold. Still not sure how to include that Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His going on the radio wouldn't be evidence of notability; WP:INTERVIEWS are primary sources. It would need to be independent secondary sources documenting his effects as an academic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dclemens1971 source 18 covers a small bit about his research. Would it be like that in terms of coverage, because there are other mentions in newspapers about similar things. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 04:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would not, since it's a student paper; per WP:RSSM, student media can be considered as reliable to confirm information but not sufficiently independent to validate notability for their home institutions and affiliated parties. Here's an example, here's another of the kind of coverage that documents the impact of an academic's research. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the basis of above and the nominator and author's endorsement of the move, I'm happy to support Draftify -- on the (WP:AGF) basis that the author may be able to find sources that support notability on one grounds or another, but it's not in the article yet. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 07:39, 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. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove Coaster routes[edit]

Brighton & Hove Coaster routes (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 WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --woodensuperman 12:42, 11 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) 13:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the nomination statement is misleading. This article is about a group of four related bus routes, not an individual one as stated, bringing into question how much attention has been paid to it and to whether any WP:BEFORE has been attempted? Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources are all from the bus company or the local council. --woodensuperman 20:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a quick Google found coverage on route 12 which is part of this article:
Article should be improved, not deleted. Garuda3 (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added to the article, mainly using sources kindly provided by Garuda3, showing praise it has recieved for its scenery. harrz talk 21:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the sources presented here show that the Coaster routes (or at least route 12) does meet WP:GNG beyond routine coverage. Having a title "the best bus route in the world" evaluated by a national mainstream paper like The Times and noted as one of England's "most scenic" by another national mainstream paper like The Guardian [26] isn't something you see on your everyday bus route (unlike route 6 which is indeed non-notable). S5A-0043Talk 02:38, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purwati (internist)[edit]

Purwati (internist) (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)

Written with a promotional tune and does not meet WP:NACADEMIC, as the published research output is relatively modest, as is her academic career (Scopus H-index of 7; very few citations for 1st-author papers, total of 142). In terms of general notability, the coverage of her patent is not high by international standards, nor is there evidence of impact of the work (other than patent filing). FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FuzzyMagma: Hello, I agree that the subject of this article has not yet gained international recognition. However, in Indonesia, he is regarded as a prominent stem cell expert who frequently garners attention from major, reputable Indonesian mass media.
He holds the distinction of being a MURI record holder for receiving the most Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in the Stem Cell Field in 2022, a testament to his significant contributions. Despite the challenge of finding additional sources regarding the impact of his research, these achievements underscore his expertise and standing in the field.
He was partner of the COVID-19 Response Acceleration Task Force during Covid-19 pandemic to advancing research, particularly in investigating Drug and Stem Cell Combination Regimens in 2020. Furthermore, his expertise is actively leveraged by Universitas Airlangga and hospitals to enhance stem cell services.
In 2019, as stated in the article, she received national recognition, being listed as an 'Indonesian Young Scientist' by the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education.
I remain guided by the notability criteria (Wikipedia:Notability). He is quite well-known in Indonesia despite not being internationally renowned. His notability has also been explained in the article through his career and achievements. Rahmatdenas (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
none of the sources looks reliable, with some being self-published, and the burden is on you to show that these sources are reliable, see WP:BURDEN. As far as resources goes, this might all be a hoax as work around stem cells and COVID is highly cited, and I cannot see anything that suggests that.
PS: you mean "she" not "he" FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sign that she passes WP:NACADEMIC, her top research doesn't even cross 50 citations. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For certain her h-factors is low, and she has no major international awards to indicate peer recognition. What I also find disturbing is the mention of using STEM cell transplant for immuno diseases and some cancers as one of her patents. In fact I am pretty certain that these are either close to or already being trialed in the UK by others, perhaps elsewhere as well. There is no indication that she is involved in any of that, otherwise there would be mentions in the UK Grauniad or the New York Times in the sources. If you have the will local patents are easy, but I have seen some local ones which would never be enforceable internationally. Hence I end up being very unconvinced by both the article and it's defence. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:40, 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 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 11:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Glincosky[edit]

Bernard Glincosky (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)

American actor. I’m the creator of this page but after editing I realized subject does not have as many sources as I thought they may have had. I’ll leave it up to you guys whether you think it deserves an article or not.HeroicWarriors (talk) 11:23, 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 merge‎ to List of demolished piers in Hong Kong. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmer Street Ferry Pier[edit]

Wilmer Street Ferry Pier (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)

Ferry pier in Hong Kong that doesn’t seem notable. I couldn’t find a suitable redirect target but a merge or redirect may be possible. Mccapra (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

makes sense to me. Mccapra (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of demolished piers in Hong Kong then redirect, as suggested by @Cunard. Found a few other mentions:
Oblivy (talk) 06:21, 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. ✗plicit 11:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Station Productions[edit]

Dream Station Productions (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'm not sure how this even meets WP:NCORP. The coverage seem to be inadequate per WP:SIRS, and this page is PROMO. I strongly smell UPE. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saqib,
The page was approved by the admins when it was created in 2019 I guess. I don't know why you are making it a personal issue. I suggest to strongly keep. The sources are independent. Aanuarif (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aanuarif, Aanuarif, Just because a page was approved in the past doesn't mean it can't be nominated for deletion now. I'm curious which admin approved it? I would like to ask them what basis they used. The problem isn't just whether the coverage is independent or not, but it's pretty clear they don't meet the WP:SIRS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No @Saqib, that's what you believe. Aanuarif (talk) 10:46, 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qudsia Ali[edit]

Qudsia Ali (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 subject doesn't meet the NACTOR. Why? Because their roles in TV shows/films listed on the BLP are minor, not major. Additionally, the GNG also does not meet due to the absence of sig/in-depth coverage about her. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep meeting WP:NACTOR. Nominator is unable to understand any rationale, nominating all articles created by me despite meeting criteria of wikipidea. The roles she played have received significant coverage. Providing some coverage from reliable sources for proving my point.

One can check by reading those sources, how much important roles she has played in her career. Her roles have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Libraa2019, That reply didn't quite answer my question. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are unable to understand any rationale and clearly not ready to listen others despite of them proving their points. Any ways, i dont have much time to spend as i am engaged in personal life. Good luck with your mission. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @Libraa2019 has done a great job showing notability. Marleeashton (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marleeashton, But I can't see tha! May you can provide WP:THREE best coverage that would establish GNG? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don’t need to be proven correct, this is about consensus. @Libraa2019 just gave you many sources and has more than satisfied what you requested. Marleeashton (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't just about reaching a consensus; it's also about providing reasoned arguments based on policy to justify whether a page should be kept or deleted. Merely stating WP:PERNOM doesn't suffice. Please understand that I mean no offense. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite the sources provided by Libraa2019, there is nothing that can be used towards establishing notability. The references fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA with the exception of the BBC piece which is an interview. I'd be willing to re-evalute should someone be able to provide some sources that do not fall under NEWSORGINIDA, are not interviews, talk about her in detail, and are otherwise considered reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unable to understand how suddenly policies of wikipidea became that much strict. You are voting delete in most of the AFD's discussion initiated by Saqib (at which i am no one to object) but here i presented 11 reliable and approved news sources but you call them WP:NEWSORGINDIA which is a little bias. The Express Tribune is a leading English newspaper from Pakistan, Same goes for The Nation, DAWN, Daily Times, Daily Jang and others mentioned by me. i did'nt mentioned any unreliable source and they are not WP:NEWSORGINDIA as these sources are used in most of the B, C and Good rated Pakistani articles. Please again review these sources.
  • The Express Tribune mentioned her most of the work in this source [38]
  • Daily Times states XXL features big names from the Pakistani media industry with Qudsia Ali in the main role [39]
  • BBC News states It has been three years since Pakistani actress Qudsia Ali stepped into the industry but she has been successful in her every project [40]
  • DAWN states Another dissonant note is the casting of Qudsia Ali as the “fat character” Tania who is constantly scolded for being overweight, despite being barely 10 pounds above a normal frame [41]

And the list goes on. One can self check on google. Libraa2019 (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libraa2019, No policy or even GNG has become stricter overnight; it's just that the community at large were overlooking Pakistani articles citing unreliable sources or dubious coverage. Despite numerous explanations across various pages, it seems you're still struggling to grasp that we're not deeming these Pakistani publications unreliable; rather, we're questioning the coverage provided by these sources, which falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. It's as simple as that. It's regrettable to say that COMPETENCE is definitely missing here. Please take a moment to review WP:GNG and WP:SIRS and try to comprehend it. Merely being in the news or receiving some ROTM coverage or paid placement is, while OK for WP:V, but not for establishing GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, you are assuming things yourself, The Express Tribune is a reliable daily newspaper and so as others mentioned above. If you are claiming they are paid or dubious coverage then where is the evidence?? And if they are covered under WP:NEWSORGINDIA then where is the consensus?? I dont see any such thing on that page. You can start a seperate discussion about reliability of these sources if you consider them paid or dubious but currently just because you are against these reliable and approved sources does'nt make them unreliable or paid. You can include admins here as i am sure if these sources are dubious then wikipidea seniors would not permit these sources in B, C and Good rated Pakistani articles but that is not the case. Thank You. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, it seems you're not getting my point OR perhaps you're choosing not to hear it. I'm not labeling these sources unreliable. Please give another look at my comments. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking it to somerwhere else, i got your point and also mentioned, please share an evidence that these are dubious or unreliable coverage. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess sometimes we just need to rely on WP:COMMONSENSE to understand what sort of coverage amounts to paid placements. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are rejecting more than 12 reliable sources on the basis of common sense. That page does'nt even mention such things. As i earlier said, you are assuming things yourself and accusing these authentic newspapers of dubious and unreliable coverage without any evidence. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources presented seem to show she had significant roles in notable productions and that is the requirement to meet WP:NACTOR -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mushy Yank, @Libraa2019 provided four references above [date stamped 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)] to claim that the subject played a major role in Kuch Ankahi. However, upon reviewing all references, I couldn't find a single mention of her playing a major role in Kuch Ankahi. Therefore, how does she meet NACTOR here? The same applies to other dramas; she didn't have major roles, and if she did, the Short film XXL, themselves aren't noteworthy enough. I hope this clarifies the issue. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is presenting sources, then you are calling them unreliable. If someone is counting roles of her then you are calling them minor roles despite her roles received significant coverage. Sorry to say but i dont understand. And i never claim she played a major role in Kahi Ankahi. Its your assumptions by reading those sources may be as all the sources mentioned her role as significant/impactful whether negatively like this [42] or positively like these [43] [44] but the thing is that her roles are receiving coverage. Libraa2019 (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm with Mushy Yank on this (though I would by way of advice encourage Libraa2019 to be more concise in future discussions). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but Libraa2019 has not provided any references showing that the actor had major roles in a TV drama. Additionally, most of the TV dramas subject acted in are not notable themselves, not because they lack WP pages, but because they don't have the sig/in-depth coverage required by GNG. Libraa2019 has simply thrown out several references, potentially to confuse the closing admin and lead to a no-consensus outcome. I appreciate your opinion, though. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of good refs here. Desertarun (talk) 16:25, 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 no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 07:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean South America[edit]

Caribbean South 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)

WP:UNSOURCED since creation in 2004. Not mentioned in any Google Books source, so likely fails WP:GNG. Formally proposing deletion after rejected WP:PROD. NLeeuw (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Caribbean and South America. NLeeuw (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing more than an unsourced defintion. The prod removal is utterly absurd, if you think this is "not an uncotroversial deletion", you need to explain what makes it controversial. Reywas92Talk 20:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just needs to be sourced. I found hits in Google Books, but not on the first page, and "Caribe sudamericano" brought up other hits as well. There are potentially usable sources on the Spanish and Portuguese language pages. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which Books results are you seeing? Beyond the first page of the Caribbean—South America plate boundary, the hits are tables where they are adjacent labels. Looking at the iw links and searches in Spanish, it still just seems there's nothing much more to say beyond that Colombia and Venezula border the Caribbean and this may be a convenient way to group them. Merge that definition to Outline_of_South_America#Regions_of_South_America or something. Reywas92Talk 04:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Various US Trade publications and some old guide books. SportingFlyer T·C 21:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Ministry of Tourism of Colombia calls that place “Caribe Colombiano” (I put a reference to the government page) so I think we just don’t know about it because we don’t live in Colombia, but seems to be a pretty notable geographical division for them. Contributor892z (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. I don't live in Colombia either, but I have visited twice (mainly Bogotá and Santa Marta), and it is important to realize that it has at least four regions that are completely different from one another: the high-altitude cities (Bogotá, Medellín, Cali), the Caribbean coast (Cartagena, Barranquilla, Santa Marta), the Pacific Coast (Buenaventura --- which may look on the map as being close to Cali, but for altitude and other reasons they don't resemble one another at all), and the various jungles (close to Ecuador, and other regions). One could even add the two islands (Providencia and San Andrés) as a fifth region totally different from the other four. So it's not just the Ministry of Tourism that regards the Caribe Colombiano as a specific entity. Athel cb (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Athel cb Caribe Colombiano is already covered at Caribbean region of Colombia. That does not justify the need for this article. Reywas92Talk 20:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I never saw on any geography books that there is a Caribbean part of South America. Culturally speaking, I know that Guyana feels closer to the Caribbean than to South America, but I’m not sure this is worthy of an article. Contributor892z (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Guyana is generally considered part of the West Indies. SportingFlyer T·C 21:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally considered by whom? Not by me, certainly, and I don't ever remember hearing anyone say that. Spanish-speaking South Americans are barely aware of the existence of Guyana and the two other Guianas, Surinam and Guyane and in my experience never mention them. (Brazilians are a bit different because they have territorial claims.) However, none of that alters the fact that the Guianas are in South America, not the West Indies. Athel cb (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Geographically they are certainly in South America. Contributor892z (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is pretty short, but Colombians clearly consider their northern coast from at least Cartagena and the Rosario Islands in the west to Riohacha and the Guajira Peninsula in the east to be Caribbean. The food and culture in the coastal region is heavily based on the Caribbean. Cbl62 (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like you are right, so I put the references (including one from Unesco that I got from the page Caribe Sudamericano) and now I am in favour of Keep then. Contributor892z (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for clarity, I am in favour of Keep because it passes WP:NGEO: "named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable." Contributor892z (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a region, not a natural feature, and that portion of NGEO does not apply here. Anyway, I only see the simple statistics of cities in this area, nothing substantive that ties it together as something that needs a stand-alone article. Reywas92Talk 20:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The topic is already dealt with by country in the articles for the Caribbean region of Colombia and Venezuelan Caribbean. Not sure what added value we get by having an additional stub article on the combined Caribbean region of the two countries. That said, Spanish Wikipedians who are more knowledgeable on the topic than I deem it worthy of a stand-alone article. See "Caribe sudamericano" on Spanish Wikipedia. I suppose it may also serve a useful navigational purpose if nothing else. Cbl62 (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If so, we might as well make it a DP. NLeeuw (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as you said, if the Spanish Wikipedia thought this was notable, it probably is… Contributor892z (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Literally nothing in the Spanish Wikipedia article is about the region as a whole, it just lists the places in Colombia and Venezuela that are adjacent to the Caribbean, no analysis or useful sources. Enwiki does not have the same notability or stand-alone article standards and procedures as other wikis. I agree a dab page may be appropriate, though I question the need for the Venezuelan Caribbean page if it's just a list of states/dependencies that border the Caribbean with zero analysis of this being a defined or described region. Reywas92Talk 20:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Venezuelan Caribbean page does look a little extra, it may be a good idea to just redirect it to the Caribbean South America page if this AfD results in keep. Contributor892z (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really annoying how this sockpuppeteer keeps creating new socks to try and single-handedly close this AfD. The rollbacks and blocks are appreciated. NLeeuw (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I've requested page protection. I don't know who keeps doing this, but regardless of the outcome, this discussion will have its orderly closure according to procedure, and will not be disrupted by WP:SPA WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. NLeeuw (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Study this one carefully.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:59, 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! 23:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeds of Hope Publishers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Seeds of Hope Publishers (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 organization does not appear to pass WP:GNG The only references not published by the organization itself is a trivial mention in the NYT and a profile of the editor, Katie Cook, in bpfna.org, who was (at the time) an editor of bpfna.org as well. While there is a list of articles under the "Further Reading" section, one of the articles was written by a student newspaper, one from Baptists Today, and the others all seem to be limited to the Waco Tribune-Herald. They are mostly from the 1990s- and I have been able to find no significant coverage since.

This is the second deletion debate this article will go through- but editors should note that the only two "keep" votes came from new accounts that did not edit anything but their own user page and the deletion discussion. While that has no bearing on the organization's notability, new Wikipedia editors will want to read the policies on canvassing and recruiting people off-Wiki before they contribute. (Unless you want to provide more sources- please, if you have them, I would like them very much) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence of notability. A mixture of references, including sourced published by Seeds of Hope Publishers, at least on not mentioning the company at all, ones which are only just mention it, and so on... JBW (talk) 20:47, 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. ✗plicit 11:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Kerdyk, Jr.[edit]

William H. Kerdyk, Jr. (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 think this person meets Wikipedia's notability requirements because the non-trivial sources are all localised/ultra-specialised in nature. Also, this article was created by Lisabofita, who has a self-admitted conflict of interest and paid editing relationship with the article's subject, and also moved it from draft to article namespace without going through the articles for creation process properly. Graham87 (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Florida. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The language used in this article and the sources used are promotional in nature. HarukaAmaranth 春香 13:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, please specify the particular language of concern, and someone can review and revise accordingly. The language of the page is not grounds for deletion; instead, efforts should focus on improving the article. Regarding the sources, I have included a list below of non-promotional sources. If you believe any specific sources are promotional, please explain your rationale. Additionally, could you please clarify what constitutes a promotional source? Are you suggesting that the individual paid to have these articles placed? Please provide clarification and any evidence or reasoning to support such claims. Lisabofita (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Promotion is using wikipedia to further a goal, such as boosting search result rankings. You don't have to pay the source to have it placed for it to be promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If any part of the article sounds promotional please feel free to edit it or revise it. That is not grounds for deletion of a notable politician and philanthropist with dozens of articles. I have tried my best to not use any promotional language. If you can point out which exact parts are promotional, they can be revised by someone. Lisabofita (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have been compensated for writing this article and have disclosed my affiliation on my userpage. Mr. Kedryk is a local politician in my area. We were introduced via a friend with the intention of my assisting in creating a page for him. I am uncertain if I am permitted to vote, so I am abstaining from doing so. Instead, I am posting a comment outlining my reasons for why the article should be retained.

He is a local politician with dozens of news articles about him. He meets:

WP:NPOL: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage
WP:ANYBIO: Has won multiple awards
WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability:
Coverage includes:
4 articles in Community Newspapers 1, 2, 3, 4
Miami Herald
South Floriad Business and Waelth Magazine
Weekend Golfer
Lifystyle Magazine
Gables Insider.Lisabofita (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also found additional coverage, not presently in the article:
- Miami Herald - This is very in-depth
- communitynewspapers.com - This is very in-depth
- .miamiherald.com 1
- miamiherald.com 2
- therealdeal.com - It is about a real estate deal, but should still count towards WP:BASIC. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" Lisabofita (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't fully looked at BASIC, and I'm not sure I'll be able to for this one, but the well-known and significant awards of ANYBIO refer to things like Nobels and Pulitzers. The awards listed unfortunately don't quite make the cut. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Noting that a previous version of this page, Bill Kerdyk Jr., was WP:G11 speedily deleted a few months ago. Curbon7 (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous version is accessible on archive.org. Personally, I believe it warranted deletion due to its overly promotional nature and lack of citations for much of the content. In contrast, my version is significantly improved, devoid of promotional elements, and includes more citations. Lisabofita (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regardless of the creator being paid to make this page, I don't think Kerdyk is notable. Serving as vice mayor of a small city does not establish notability, and the articles cited on the page seem to mostly be articles from smaller publications or only mention him in passing. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Miami Herald is a widely recognized publication with a longstanding history dating back to 1903. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to say it is non-notable. The subject has been featured in three distinct articles on Miami Herald, further attesting to their significance. Additionally, Community Newspapers has been in existence since 1967 and has also published several articles featuring the subject. It is worth noting that both of these publications have their own Wikipedia pages, underscoring their credibility and notability.
    Moreover, numerous articles provide comprehensive coverage of the subject, including 1, 2, 3, 4, Miami Herald, South Florida Business and Wealth Magazine, Weekend Golfer and Lifestyle Magazine. I would like to emphasize that these articles offer substantive insights rather than mere passing mentions.
    If you have not had the opportunity to review these articles thoroughly, I encourage you to do so. Upon closer examination, you will find that they provide valuable and detailed information about the subject. Lisabofita (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't even list any Wikipedia policies with your above statement which is concerning. Read up on our general notability guidelines and then look at the specific notability guidelines for politicians. – The Grid (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems you didn't read my prior comments. I named 3 policies above. How about WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability???
    WP:NPOL: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. He has dozens of in-depth articles.
    WP:ANYBIO: He has won multiple awards. Although someone has argued these are not notable awards. I do not agree as they are all from well known local organizations and he has at least 6 awards.
    Lisabofita (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sourced primarily to promotional puff pieces from hyperlocal media.-KH-1 (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please identify the articles you consider to be promotional puff pieces and explain why you think so for each one. Many articles discuss his political activities and are independently authored by reputable sources like the Miami Herald and Community Newspapers, both of which have presence on Wikipedia. Are you suggesting that some articles might be paid or sponsored content? Lisabofita (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being the vice mayor of a relatively small city is certainly not an WP:NPOL pass and all of the awards fall well short of an WP:ANYBIO pass-which is meant to be applied to national and international award like a Pullitzer Prize and not something like the "citizen of the year" from your town's Rotary Club. Additionally, WP:POLOUTCOMES has dictated over the years that local coverage of local politicians is to be discounted and a higher level of coverage is needed to establish WP:GNG. I'd also recommend the author of this article read WP:BLUDGEON. Given that paid-for articles on this subject have already been deleted at Bill Kerdyk Jr. and William H. ‘Bill’ Kerdyk, Jr., I believe that WP:SALTing may be needed as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I am not trying to BLUDGEON, but I must respond to your objections. Why do you think he doesn't meet WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"???
Please note that I was unaware of previous attempts to create a page for him. Those submissions were not made by me. After reviewing an old version on Archive.org, I agree that its deletion was justified due to its promotional tone and lack of sufficient citations. Therefore, the previous deletions should not influence the evaluation of my current submission. Lisabofita (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I explained my reasoning. This is a textbook example of BLUDGEONing, which can discourage others from participating in the AfD. At this point I would recommend stepping back and let the AfD run its course with new editors giving their opinions. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can COI accounts even participate in these discussions? I guess they can as it's not an article page but I think closing admin has to be aware of the COI. – The Grid (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They can as long as the COI is disclosed. A COI/PAID editor badgering every editor's delete vote could possibly be a breach of Wiki-etiquette, though. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I blocked this editor sitewide due to disruption but made it a partial block *just* so they could participate here (the results weren't unexpected, but I thought it was fairer this way, if anything). See their user talk page. Graham87 (talk) 19:03, 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× ☎ 21:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

H. B. Garlock[edit]

H. B. Garlock (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)

Biography of a missionary who does not appear to be notable. Lack of in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 07:51, 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 11:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nii Atakora Mensah[edit]

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

BLP of a content developer who does not appear to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:49, 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. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oba Sefiu Oyebola Adeyeri III, Ajirotutu I[edit]

Oba Sefiu Oyebola Adeyeri III, Ajirotutu I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of someone who is either a non-notable local ruler, or possibly, per this source, a fraudster. Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Caribbean zone[edit]

Western Caribbean zone (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 reads somewhat similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Caribbean in that it fails to identify a specific, notable topic. Searching for "Western Caribbean zone" yields no useful results at all, and while the sources here are citations for specific facts, I can't find anything that discusses this as a region as a whole. Describing these historical eras seems like original research when combining what happened in some places over a long time without being able to describe their relationships to a specific region, rather than just about Central America or History of Central America with a bit of adjacent Mexico and Colombia tossed in. Reywas92Talk 20:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and Caribbean. Reywas92Talk 20:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Indeed it is very similar to the other 3 Caribbean subregion articles I nominated for deletion earlier today. It has sources, but those usually only deal with specific countries and not the purported wider region as a whole. NLeeuw (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge... In response here, I initiated this article in 2010 as a way to incorporate the Afro-Carribean diaspora into Central American history. Typically as it appears to me, work focused on Central America tends to leave out the important role played, as the original contribution did, that there is a complex set of African components in the region that were always connected to the the Caribbean, hence the Western Caribbean zone.
This includes, initially, the role of African groups like the Miskitos or Miskitos Zambos, with their international connections, to English colonies in particular, and then the use the English made of them to promote their own illegal (in Spanish eyes) trade with the region.
This was followed by the large scale migration from the English speaking Caribbean in conjunction with the building of the Panama Canal, and the actions of the fruit companies in particular. These communities are connected thought their adherence (today) to the English language (though many are bi-lingual), English customs, such as the Anglican church and other lesser religious groups that have home in the English Caribbean, to include customs like playing cricket.
I am perfectly willing to accept a merger with other areas, or a renaming, but I think that deletion of its content at least along the lines established here, is unnecessary and the piece is worthy of retention as a topic in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beepsie (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think History of Central America would be a good place to include most of this then. I agree with your comments that this is an important part of history, but even if this "zone" term is sometimes used, I don't think it needs to be a separate page like this. Reywas92Talk 00:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are definitely sources to support the term. I don't know why the conclusion is that there are no useful results at all - it seems to have been a British geographic term, and countries self-describe as being inside the zone. [45] SportingFlyer T·C 22:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I DO NOT agree on deleting this article because there is some important components that can help with the article. I'm currently not certain if a merger is possible while there there's a way to improve the nature of this article or we could just keep it as is while improving it. 20chances (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:30, 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. Owen× ☎ 21:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Basin[edit]

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

WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, 1 source providing a dictionary definition, plus an WP:UNSOURCED quasi-duplicate of Caribbean#Countries and territories list. Whatever else this article might have been intended for, is better served by List of Caribbean islands or Caribbean Sea. It has been a redirect in the past, that could work instead of deletion, but then we must agree on the best target. NLeeuw (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The discussion has evolved a lot since I commenced it three days ago. Now 4 editors (including myself as nom) are in favour of Disambiguation, and 2 editors are in favour of Keep, while nobody is in favour of outright Deletion or a Redirect anymore. Just want to note that, because the latter two are the only options I suggested in my original rationale above. NLeeuw (talk) 08:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Reywas92: I see you've just turned it into a redirect to Caribbean. I'm not opposed to that outcome, but isn't this a bit of a premature move after I have just initiated this AfD? NLeeuw (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I was using the easy-merge tool and had the page up since before your nomination so I didn't even see that when I saved it five minutes later! I undid that and will vote redirect to Caribbean. The one source is an analysis of the breadth of terms that can apply to this region, all of which can have different geographic and political definitions, so I see no basis for a separate article as if this were a distinct or well-defined concept. The see also links for the US program use the political definition that includes some non-bordering countries, so this is pointless. Reywas92Talk 21:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha I already thought that might have been going on as we acted almost at the same time. No worries. :) NLeeuw (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of the comment below I would also support disambiguation However, I am still strongly opposed to keeping the page. Even with the added information, I don't see the need for stand-alone article. The origin of the term for the Caribbean Basin Initiative belongs on that article, and the rest is just generically about the region. Yes, the term is used – inconsistently, including for this Initiative and as described by [46] – but even if Basin countries are related in various ways however defined, a separate page isn't warranted. Reywas92Talk 21:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not OR or SYNTH - in fact, a very easy WP:BEFORE search as the defined area is discussed by many books and scholarly articles dating back years including [47] [48] [49] [50]. These just scratch the surface - there was a history section at one point that was deleted for lack of sourcing, wondering if restoring and sourcing it would be a good idea. SportingFlyer T·C 22:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn into a disambiguation page to disambiguate w/ Caribbean, Caribbean Basin Initiative, Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act of 1983, Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act and Caribbean Basin Trade and Partnership Act. It's clear from the vast array of reliable sources and uses that "Caribbean Basin" is a generic term for the Caribbean Sea and countries in the region. The article as it stands relies on one source to separate out Barbados and the Bahamas as not part of the Caribbean Basin, but most other uses include all regional countries in the term and treat it as an equivalent term to "Caribbean region." It would be original research for an article to rely on a single (and tendentious) definition to somehow conjure "Caribbean Basin" into existence as a separate term. My reason for turning this into a disambig page rather than a redirect is to cover the various U.S. government laws and initiatives employing the term (and that include the Bahamas and Barbados, natch). Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Disambiguate per Dclemens' sensible reasoning and a lot of the competing definitions which may lead to a WP:POVFORK with Caribbean if this is not done. I think that's the first time I've gotten to vote that in an AfD. BrigadierG (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A DP might be the best solution here. I wouldn't be opposed to that outcome either. NLeeuw (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : I've expanded the article with reliable sources. Based on the sources I've seen which I've added to the article (see article), this appears to be a specific geographical region, which in part, but not exclusively, is determined by political and economic considerations. In someway, similar to the Middle Belt, and other regional articles, etc. The subject is notable in its own right, with plenty of WP:RS discussing the topic in dephth, and maybe we should be mindful not to confuse the general reader between a geographic region/basin (which are notable), and an economic or trade program like Caribbean Basin Initiative, instituted by statute law like Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act of 1983. There is a huge difference between these and perhaps we should be mindful not to lump this article to other articles which would be wrong, and might also confuse the reader. In my view, to merge with another article would be like discussing two separate unrelated subjects in the same article. In the end, it may push the community to have to create the same article which was previously created and deleted, just to separate the two topics, and would send us back to square one. I haven't even scratched the surface, but from the sources I've seen so far, I believe this article can be expanded even further. On a side note, would the nom kindly transclude this AfD to to alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Africa so that Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora are also automatically alerted? African Diaspora get their notifications from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ethnic groups or Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Africa. Many thanks.Tamsier (talk)
    These additions don't deal with the fact that there is no consensus among the sources on what defines the "Caribbean Basin" versus just the "Caribbean." As the current revision of the article notes, the US Caribbean Basin Initiative excluded Cuba and Nicaragua. One sentence says "This means countries like Barbados and The Bahamas, which are culturally and politically Caribbean, are not included.[2]" (And the list in the article does indeed exclude them.) Later on, a statement in the article says "It is customary to include Bermuda and the Bahamian Archipelago within this region, although they are located in the Atlantic Ocean outside the arc, since they share the cultural and historical legacy of the countries of the Lesser Antilles." So what is it? The more the article gets developed, the more it will just turn into a content fork of Caribbean. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent observation. NLeeuw (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dclemens1971, I think that is a matter for the reliable secondary sources to decide, not for us to define it, as to try and do so here would constitute WP:OR. We report on what the reliable secondary sources say with respect to weight, and leave it to the general reader to make up their mind. If we go down the route of trying to define it here, that would constitute WP:OR. The differences in definition as per sources, however, should not be grounds for deletion. In situations like that, we simply report per weight as per Wiki guidelines.Tamsier (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But if the reliable sources don't even have a common agreement on what "Caribbean Basin" means or if it's different from "Caribbean," why bother having an article about it? Do we need an article to debate the semantics of the term "Caribbean Basin," because that's what we have now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is general agreement. Part of the problem is that the agreement doesn't match what's currently in the actual article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • But this still isn't really a "specific geographical region" in that the geographical area/first sentence isn't even accurate in most cases. The book you added "The Caribbean Basin: An International History" does include Barbados and the Bahamas, as well as El Salvador. Certainly we can acknowledge that Caribbean island nations are historically and politically related to the Central American and northern South American countries, but I don't feel like we need a stand-alone article to say that. We could draftify the page, but I'm not sure what sort of expansion you say can be done actually has to be done here – and not somewhere like History of Central America or History of the Caribbean – that wouldn't just be duplicative or an unnecessary content fork. Reywas92Talk 21:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But why does there need to be a specific definition in order to show notability? Why can't we say some sources say X and some say Y and have it be notable? Why is an editing decision coming in the way of notability? SportingFlyer T·C 06:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's less about notability and more about the WP:CONTENTFORK issue. If the article really encompasses any number of countries associated with the Caribbean region and/or the Caribbean sea, then the term should disambiguate/redirect to "Caribbean." That covers the territory. We only need a freestanding article if there is evidence that the term "Caribbean Basin" means something specific and different from "Caribbean." Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I liked reading this link from the article. It comes from an ecological perspective but the point is that many different organizations, discliplines, or analysts may use several names with different and inconsistent definitions for the region and subregions. You could make a big complex Euler diagram out of them. But just because each of these names is used in depth does not mean there's something more to say that justifies the need for a separate article. So sure, maybe Caribbean Basin is notable and I am making an editing decision – there's just not enough to say that this is needed as another article (WP:NOPAGE). Perhaps a page similar to Terminology of the British Isles could break out the differences when sources say X or Y. Reywas92Talk 17:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Such a terminology article only seems warranted when a simple disambiguation page is not enough to point readers to what they are looking for. I think a DP is the proper place to start. NLeeuw (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I still don't really agree - there's lots of scholarly and international sources which use the term "Caribbean Basin" and the book Politics and Development in the Caribbean Basin: Central America and the Caribbean in the New World Order (Grugel, 2015) discusses how the term was used by the United States government in the 1980s to give a specific geographic definition to an area where "Caribbean" is not necessarily a specific geographic identifier. That book also notes El Salvador is included in spite not touching the Caribbean, as confirmed by this paper. There's something geographically notable here - it's not just a superfluous term. SportingFlyer T·C 23:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As noted above in my earlier comment, it is outside the remit of Wikipedia editors to try to define terms which are not already defined or covered by reliable secondary sources. Our notability guideline is very clear as to what deserves a stand-alone article and what doesn't. In my view, as the one who expanded the article and added other reliable sources, I believe this article meets WP:GNG. Our policy on WP:WEIGHT makes it absolutely clear as to how to give weight to sources with differing views. The issue of weight is not a ground for deletion as noted above. The content fork argument does not apply here, because the scope is different from the other articles mentioned by other editors. This article focuses more on a particular geographical region/basin which in part, but not exclusively is motivated by economic/trade, instituted by US law. I contend that, moving this article to another would end up causing more harm to that article and confuses the reader. Sending a fully sourced notable article to a disambiguation page not only defeats the purpose of our disambiguation process, but also cheats the general reader looking for this article. Of course the article can be expanded even further and much better, but that is not a ground for deletion, neither is variation in definition which can be resolved by adopting out weight policy.Tamsier (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your efforts, but I don't think your additions have made the term "Caribbean Basin" as such any more worthy of a stand-alone article separate from Caribbean and Caribbean Sea.
    • You've not changed the definition in the opening line either, so let's do a close-reading comparison:
    "Caribbean Basin" according to Caribbean Basin: the Caribbean Sea and any territories in or touching the Caribbean Sea.
    "Caribbean" acccording to Caribbean: a subregion of the Americas that includes the Caribbean Sea and its islands, some of which are surrounded by the Caribbean Sea and some of which border both the Caribbean Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean; the nearby coastal areas on the mainland are sometimes also included in the region.
    "Caribbean" acccording to Caribbean Sea: The entire Caribbean Sea area, the West Indies' numerous islands, and adjacent coasts are collectively known as the Caribbean.
    I still don't see a difference.
    • The "Geographic area" section you added is wholly WP:UNSOURCED.
    • The sentence about the Caribbean Basin Initiative indicates that the 1983 U.S. govt law excluded Cuba and Nicaragua from the definition, so the 1983 U.S. govt law cannot be used to support the definition or the "Caribbean Basin region" altname. It is also at odds with your WP:UNSOURCED "Geographical area" section, which explicitly includes Cuba.
    • The Mount/Randall source is invoked to say the Caribbean became "an American lake". But if "the Caribbean" is something else than "the Caribbean Basin", this whole sentence is irrelevant and out of place in this article, or very sloppily added.
    • The Pastor source is similarly invoked to say the USA never saw itself as a Caribbean nation, and ...all the nations in and around the Caribbean Sea seemed to have..., which is irrelevant as well if those words mean something else than "Caribbean Basin". If they do mean the same, then you have just proven our case that "Caribbean Basin" does not merit a stand-alone article, but is just a synonym of "Caribbean", namely: the Caribbean Sea, its islands and the continental coasts of the Caribbean Sea.
    I rest my case. NLeeuw (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clearly not a synonym - it's a specific geostrategic definition. I've added additional sources to the article and cleaned up the lede to note that El Salvador is generally included, which completely negates your argument, and I have not yet included the footnote from this article which clearly defines why this term is of practical importance. SportingFlyer T·C 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a specific geostrategic definition for a particular source. Quote from page v, note 1 of the Rand paper you linked: "Throughout this study the term 'Caribbean Basin' will be defined as the geographic area of the Caribbean Sea, including all the rim islands, all littoral states (from Mexico to Venezuela), and three countries not geographically contiguous to the Caribbean: El Salvador in Central America, and Guyana and Suriname on the Atlantic (see map facing p.1). Thus used, 'Caribbean Basin' denotes a specific geostrategic region that has special importance for the United States. This differs from the reference used in the Caribbean Basin Initiative, which has an economic focus on the smaller, less-developed countries of the region, thereby excluding Mexico, Colombia, and Venezuela." That source is highlighting the fact that there is no single definition of "Caribbean Basin" and choosing one for its own research purposes. This gets to the point that @Nederlandse Leeuw and @Reywas92 and I have been making: this is a widely used term that means different things in different contexts but that generally aligns with the regional definition of "Caribbean." Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, Dclemens1971. I think that attempts to find more sources on "Caribbean Basin", although certainly done in good faith, have so far amounted to little more than WP:REFBOMB of the "lacking significant coverage" i.e. brief namechecking type (no. #1), "verify random facts" type (no. #2), and "name-drop" type (no. #4). There is no good case for a stand-alone article (nor for outright deletion, but I have given up that proposal already), but there is a good case for a disambiguation page now. NLeeuw (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, these arguments are completely ridiculous - something is notable if it's been covered significantly by multiple sources, and many, many different sources use the definition to discuss an otherwise arbitrary geography. There's absolutely a good case for a stand-alone article - the article covers a term used to define a specific region, used in scholarly articles, that does not overlap any other term, and the books and articles that have been written on this area absolutely demonstrate that. That is what notability is - there's no WP:NOT. You just don't like it. SportingFlyer T·C 21:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I always love a good article on a term or concept that hasn't been properly covered elsewhere. I write such articles all the time (or at least, I try to). I'm open to "Caribbean Basin" meriting a stand-alone article, but I'm afraid I do not see it happening based on the arguments and sources provided on the one hand, and our policies and guidelines on the other. NLeeuw (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no policy and guideline which excludes this, and it passes GNG as a regional geographic definition, including in sources not yet cited such as the New Third World, which contains a chapter on Caribbean Basin countries, again noting the inclusion of countries such as El Salvador. The arguments for deletion so far assume it's a generic term, which it is clearly not, and dismiss the sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 22:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no policy and guideline which excludes this Well, I started this AfD by invoking WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNSOURCED, and later WP:REFBOMB. Subsequently, others have invoked WP:POVFORK, WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:NOPAGE. Our arguments are based on solid policies and guidelines.
    (For the sake of completeness, you and Tamsier are the only ones arguing for a keep, invoking WP:BEFORE, WP:GNG, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT. Of course, the quantity of policies and guidelines invoked does not necessarily say anything about their quality and relevance for this AfD.) NLeeuw (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OR doesn't apply since this isn't original research, and WP:SYNTH doesn't apply since we are stating what the sources say after a bit of cleanup. There are only 11 sources in the article at the moment. WP:POVFORK doesn't apply because Caribbean Basin and the Caribbean are two separate concepts. There's no good reason to delete this - it's a now decently sourced specific geographic concept. SportingFlyer T·C 23:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:29, 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 speedy keep‎. This needs to go to WP:MfD not AfD. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Evolutionary Tinkering[edit]

Draft:Evolutionary Tinkering (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Evolutionary Tinkering|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's another article with the same title and same content. So requesting to delete this page. Evolutionary_tinkering iVickyChoudhary (talk) 07:27, 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 11:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Little League World Series announcers[edit]

List of Little League World Series announcers (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. Also, this list is entirely unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:25, 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 11:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big 12 Championship Game broadcasters[edit]

List of Big 12 Championship Game 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; nearly all of these are about the game or are broadcasting schedules with one leading back to its homepage. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:20, 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 11:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ReliaQuest Bowl broadcasters[edit]

List of ReliaQuest 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 that is not a dead link per WP:RS; one is a WP:PRIMARY of one of the teams, three of those are about the Bowl games in general, one is about the BCS National Championship. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:00, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Texas Bowl broadcasters[edit]

List of Texas 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, all but one is a press release, one of which is a 404. That source that is not a press release is a dead link. All the ESPN press releases is about the Bowl games, not just this. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 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 11:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cake Mania (series)[edit]

Cake Mania (series) (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 first game is absolutely notable, but I can't find notability for the series. The page has been without valid sources since 2010. It's best off mentioned on the page of the first game, i.e. in a "Legacy" section. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I agree, the first game is definitely notable. The other games, not so much. The second game has some articles from Pocket Gamer [51] [52] [53] [54] and a preview from IGN [55] and this one [56] (technically a reliable source according to WP:VG/S). The sources for every game just go downhill from here because all I found for the third game was [57]. The idea to put it under a 'Legacy' section in the article for the first game is great. Props to nom. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I went ahead and added a legacy section for the first game per comments above. I did find 3 different RS reviews for Cake Mania 2, so if you really wanted to, you could maybe make a standalone article for it, but I'll leave that to some other editor. One annoying thing was the games have been released on a bunch of different platforms at different times, and are all delisted from stores now, so I was struggling to find accurate release dates for all of them. In the end I just listed the release years and avoided going into specifics. CurlyWi (talk) 20:14, 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! 02:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tracefs[edit]

Tracefs (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:NSOFTWARE. Only significant coverage (ie. not press release republication or forum post etc.) is a paper by the authors of the software. https://www.usenix.org/conference/fast-04/tracefs-file-system-trace-them-all Jonathan Deamer (talk) 05:30, 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! 05:45, 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. ✗plicit 11:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standard telegraph level[edit]

Standard telegraph level (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)

Another WP:DICTDEF. I couldn't even find any usage of this phrase outside dictionary definitions. Not sure if there is a reasonable redirect target; maybe it could be moved to Wiktionary. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft delete - I've had time not to research this after deprodding it and have not found sufficient sourcing to establish notability or even provide additional context to what is being presented here. There are no important incoming links so deleting without prejudice is unlikely to create any issues for readers or editors. I am unable to identify any WP:ATDs. ~Kvng (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 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 redirect‎ to 2023–24 A-League Women. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 A-League Women finals series[edit]

2024 A-League Women finals series (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)

Almost all of the article is already shown in the 'parent' article 2023–24 A-League Women, aside from a separate map with the subset of the teams that made the finals, so there is scant additional relevant information in this Fork to warrant a stand-alone article. The level of detail is equivalent to that shown in articles of previous seasons of the A-League Women Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:33, 27 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! 04:46, 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! 04:08, 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 redirect‎ to List of Philippine films of 2019#October–December. Liz Read! Talk! 02:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bahad (film)[edit]

Bahad (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)

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG; 8 of the 10 sources in the article are literally unreliable (Facebook, YouTube, etc.), and no significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm not sure if this is reliable either; this may be notable but a passing mention isn't going to establish notability of the film. I couldn't find any other sources that try to establish notability for this film, either. Additionally, I wouldn't oppose a redirect to List of Philippine films of 2019#October–December. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:40, 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 redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by DD National#Drama series. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aurat (TV series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Aurat (TV series) (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 articles doesn't cite WP:RS and doesn't meet WP: Notability, hence should be deleted Sameeerrr (talk) 20:28, 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 merge‎ to Santoshi Maa (TV series). Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santoshi Maa – Sunayein Vrat Kathayein[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Santoshi Maa – Sunayein Vrat Kathayein (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP: Notability and clearly doesn't meet the criteria of WP:GNG therefore should be deleted}} Sameeerrr (talk) 20:40, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_May_11&oldid=1224646257"