Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 12 May 14 >

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight.works[edit]

Midnight.works (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 company per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Contested PROD. There is not really much secondary coverage on the company. The purported notability is on the AppStore success of one title, Hashiriya Drifter. Sources in the article are primary or have a WP:PROMO feel, with this source even inviting readers to become part of the team. A very quick WP:BEFORE only finds some coverage from Nintendo Life about a allegations of the conduct of the studio making 'scam' games. None of this seems to cumulatively provide evidence of sustained, significant coverage about the studio that would warrant an article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have prepared a draft of an article for the next upload to improve its quality. This company resembles 11bit studios, which developed Frostpunk and other games, but not everyone is familiar with Frostpunk. VollyM (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am unable to locate anything meeting the criteria. BBC pointed to an article in #diez, but on review of the original (google translate) it appears to also clearly fail ORGIND (the BBC coverage does not really go beyond that the article exists). It seems unlikely we'll be able to locate sources meeting the criteria beyond doubt. I'm not sure what VollyM means by their comment, if they want to keep working on a draft, I'm happy to support that (it can be requested at WP:REFUND if not closed that way), but in my judgement it is unlikely for eligible sources to exist. I would recommend making use of the draft review process if that is the path embarked upon. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that they were kicked of the Playstation store sometime earlier this year (see [1][2][3]) and appear to be publishing more games under a bunch of different labels (see [4] and this comment in particular), though i'm unsure if that's enough to meet notability guidelines but figured I post this here (first time posting in these deletion discussions by the way so apologies if I did something wrong.) Knockknock987 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all! Deletion discussions are for everyone and it's important everyone shares their views in the context of the deletion policy. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing wrong at all. Welcome to the discussion and thank you for caring about trying to do this correctly. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vrxces and Alpha3031 make a good case for deletion, and my own search uncovered nothing new. Charcoal feather (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet GNG and NCORP.Dowrylauds (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of evidence or even clear assertion of notability, plus lack of secondary sources for the article. Google search produces very few online mentions at all. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrizia Sanvitale[edit]

Patrizia Sanvitale (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 only sources that come up on a google news search are articles by her. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Italy. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete. The Italian newspapers and magazines where we could check for reviews are behind paywalls so it's very hard to find sources. I looked on Italian Amazon but did not find published reviews (nor mention of the award). I can say that the creator of the article has the same name as her collaborator on most of her books, User:Castellacci. That user name conflicted with another when user names were normalized across wikis. Another SPA User:PuzzleInk comes in later and that name is also the name of the publisher of one of her supposed works. Lamona (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gliding aside the COI or UPE, the subject doesn't seemingly have significant coverage, at least online. I've dug in Italian as well (cursory), but was unable to find anything of use. Printed sig coverage is unlikely, and is pretty hard to find in a foreign language which I don't speak myself. X (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:SIGCOV failure. Right now, it's basically a mixture of WP:OR and WP:RESUME. Bearian (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Mac Tonight#Reintroduction in Southeast Asia( 2006–2010). Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Tonight Party[edit]

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

I am unable to find any significant coverage of "Mac Tonight Party" on Google that would warrant a separate article from the already existing mention of this topic in Mac Tonight. Deauthorized. (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Deauthorized. (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tried to find sources including using some Chinese keywords to find local press, and found nothing. South China Morning Post mentioned the campaign got an advertising award but that was just name-checking without content. Lots of plush toys available for sale, cute but not WP:RS.
    Redirect for all the good reasons given by @Cunard. I don't think the existence on McDonald's website does anything but prove it's not a hoax. Oblivy (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mac Tonight#Reintroduction in Southeast Asia (2006–2010) (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Mac Tonight Party is discussed on the website of McDonald's Hong Kong:
    1. "Mac Tonight Party :: 麥當勞香港". 13 November 2019. Archived from the original on 2019-11-13. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
    I did not find significant coverage in independent reliable sources about Mac Tonight Party.

    A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. Not finding significant coverage or evidence of notability, I would agree this should redirect to Mac Tonight#Reintroduction in Southeast Asia (2006–2010). No objection to preserving the edit history. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:45, 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 keep‎. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hasan Abdal (1813)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Hasan Abdal (1813) (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 is littered with unreliable sources to promote ethnic heroism and its statements are not fully cited and there is no contemporary proof of the occurrence of this battle and the page requires deletion.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'd like more review of sources and whether or not this small "battle" was, in fact, notable. Nominator, who didn't sign their statement, was User:Festivalfalcon873
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Pinto (footballer, born 1951)[edit]

Pedro Pinto (footballer, born 1951) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find much for th article to meet WP:SPORTSBIO. However, the rate if cited unreliable sources is alarming. I have searched and searched, yet nothing is coming. Maybe sources may being Spanish but I doubt since the ones cited here aren't reliable per WP:RS. If sources are found, pls me. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:49, 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! 21:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ario Eslamshahr[edit]

Ario Eslamshahr (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 WP:SIGCOV to establish notability per WP:ORGCRIT. If sources are found, please ping me. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it does not provide sufficient notability, offering limited and generic information about the sports club that does not set it apart from numerous other local clubs. Moreover, it lacks independent, reliable sources to verify its significance or impact.--Improvised but so real unicorn (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Variety Tonight[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Canada. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject most definitely does meet GNG; I was literally already in the middle of improving its sourcing before you nominated it, precisely because I noticed its lack of referencing in the process of agreeing with your prod on the related (but much less sourceable) Here Come the Seventies — so it now has twelve footnotes in it. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hey, I remember this program. Yes, it meets WP:GNG. It does have some historic information. Articles does rely heavily on one source does include more valid sources - importantly, valid sources. I see no purpose to be served by axing this one. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple reliable sources, meets WP:GNG. Contributor892z (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Weather Service Weather forecast offices[edit]

List of National Weather Service Weather forecast offices (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)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Let'srun (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - A nice referenced list to have. However, how is it kept up to date? — Maile (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – While I have my thoughts on this which I will try to add later, this article isn't very watched (fewer than 30 watchers), so recommend including discussion links elsewhere to encourage discussion. Master of Time (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTCRITERIA. Christian75 (talk) 11:42, 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! 22:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above reasons.
Benpiano800 (talk) 23:35, 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! 22:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hoshiarpur (1711)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Hoshiarpur (1711) (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 battle is not historically accurate and when and where the battle took place does not appear in any historical work, printed, or in manuscript and thus it is required for the deletion of this page

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 6. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have repaired this somewhat malformed nomination, which initially proposed deleting the nonexistent Battle of Hoshiarpur article. (That this indicates possible overdisambiguation is a matter not necessarily relevant to AfD.) No opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources are RS; published by university presses or historians. The article can be expanded upon with existing and other sources. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Southasianhistorian8
    None of the sources allude to this battle taking place at Hoshiarpur, with Ganda Singh outright stating the battle's location is unknown. One of the sources cited (Muzaffar Alam) doesn't even provide an account of this battle. Just because the sources come from reliable historians doesn't automatically justify the page being kept, especially considering none of the sources make mention of a battle taking place at Hoshiarpur. The same critiques and issues you raised on the Battle of Rohilla also apply to this one aswell. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Thanks for repairing this nomination by User:Festivalfalcon873 (who didn't leave their signature). I think we need to hear from more editors on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noted this page was created by sock account and is good for WP:G5 speedy deletion. RangersRus (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 3 sources on the page and all of then are poor and unreliable sources. One of the source is repeated twice that is from William Irvine, an administrator of the Indian Civil Service from 1863 to 1899 and is a WP:RAJ unreliable source. Source by Grewal and Habib is a translation of primary source from Persian to English. Source by Alam is a Google snippet that has no coverage on the battle the subject is on. The page fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the sources allude or mention of this conflict taking place at Hoshiarpur. Considering the location itself is unknown, the page does not warrant an entire wikipedia article dedicated to it. Maybe some of the info can be merged with a larger page such as Isa Khan Munj or Banda Singh Bahadur, but this page alone does not warrant an entire wikipedia article as it's not notable enough.
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and contains unreliable sources. Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubee[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb45424 (talk • contribs) 12:44, April 29, 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was able to find this article about the subject, and I would also describe myself as leaning keep. Hatman31 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CITYpeek[edit]

AfDs for this article:
CITYpeek (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 the notability guideline for companies. Passing mentions in local sources only. – Teratix ₵ 16:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Neither in the cited sources nor anywhere else that I have seen is there any substantial coverage in independent sources. JBW (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously brought to AFD, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: For an article to meet WP:BASICS, it needs to have a strong context supported with reliable sources per WP:RS or then, we aren't arguing. GNG must be met before looking at WP:NCORP, an adittional criteria for various SNGs. The product isn't notable. Pls delete! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:57, 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! 22:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Brooks (artist)[edit]

Greg Brooks (artist) (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)

Minor comics artist. Not seeing sufficient coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. gobonobo + c 21:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. gobonobo + c 21:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Looking at incoming links, he didn't seem to win any awards, and according to the archived ComicBookDB, he wasn't a consistent contributor to any titles other than the short limited series already highlighted before he... had to be replaced. I'm guessing this was created due to him going to prison for allegedly murdering his wife in 1988. I think that this falls under WP:ONEEVENT, and that event was not even significantly covered. It took me a while to dig up that link up somewhere outside archived forum posts. Recommend deletion. -2pou (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find his name listed in descriptions of individual comics issues and arcs that he worked on, but nothing about him, minus the mention that he killed his wife. Lamona (talk) 03:31, 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. I see a consensus here to Delete this article. This is not "vote counting", I've read this entire discussion and the majority of participating editors are not persuaded that sources provide significant coverage to establish that GNG is met.

This decision doesn't mean that an article about this subject wil never exist but if a new version is attempted, should this subject become more notable, it should receive an AFC review first. Recreating this article in main space makes a CSD G4 speedy deletion very likely and should this happen more than once, it is probable that the article page title will be protected and the likelihood of a future article becomes more dim. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pratikur Rahaman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. This is also written promotionally. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Source 1 is fine, but I can't find anything else in RS we can use. I don't see any other sources in those used that are reliable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. TheWikiholic (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For those claiming the subject does not meet WP:GNG, here is the source assessment table.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://indianexpress.com/article/political-pulse/cpm-next-gen-who-is-pratikur-rahaman-9256427/ Yes Yes WP:RSPS Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. ✔ Yes
https://hindi.news24online.com/india/pratikur-rahaman-who-cpim-candidate-contest-election-against-abhishek-banerjee-in-diamond-harbour-seat/660274/ Yes Yes The source is a major news channel. Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. ✔ Yes
https://eisamay.com/west-bengal-news/24pargana-news/diamond-harbour-left-candidate-pratikur-rahaman-know-details-about-her/amp_articleshow/109069775.cms Yes Yes The source is a major Bengali newspaper. Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. ✔ Yes
https://www.moneycontrol.com/elections/lok-sabha-election/lok-sabha-elections-2024-who-is-pratikur-rahaman-the-cpm-candidate-taking-on-abhishek-from-diamond-harbour-article-12594511.html Yes ? The source is a well known financial news website run by Network18, which has partnerships with CNN. Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. ? Unknown
https://indianexpress.com/elections/diamond-harbour-lok-sabha-constituency-two-time-sitting-mp-abhishek-banerjee-to-face-challenge-from-cpims-pratikur-rahaman-and-bjps-abhijit-das-9317741/ Yes Yes WP:RSPS ~ The article has a paragraph on the subject. ~ Partial
https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/how-young-leaders-are-spawning-a-generational-shift-in-cpi-m-1927728-2022-03-21 Yes Yes The source is the highly regarded magazine India Today. ~ The article has a paragraph on the subject ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Not just WP:GNG but there is also WP:NBIO for biographical articles. The guideline mentions these conditions too.
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"
To this end the last 2 sources meet the requirement too. Therefore with these conditions and with the availability of these sources, mere handwave arguments with guideline links asserting the subject is not notable should not be made. MrMkG (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With your source analysis above, it becomes obvious that you do not clearly know how GNG works or what a reliable independent significant coverage is. Don’t worry, that’s the essence of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is in essence another handwave comment and now in a patronising tone. Are you trying to say that major newspapers, news channels, etc are not reliable independent sources? Are you even familiar with Indian sources? Or are you trying to say that the coverage is not significant, that there is something inaccurate in my description? MrMkG (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The subject does not meet WP:GNG. These sources before 2024 election only provide passing mentions with a bunch of new sources because of the candidacy, wrote about him in some or single paragraph about him. Additionally, these sources merely announce his candidacy against TMC leader Abhishek. I've already voted against many articles created due to the 2024 General Elections Which fails WP:BLP1E; these candidates are not elected as MPs yet and do not meet WP:NPOL. Being a vice-president of a student organization does not meet NPOL criteria either. Furthermore, this coverage cannot justify notability. We can wait to see if he wins and becomes an MP or, in future elections, an MLA; then he will automatically become notable. GrabUp - Talk 10:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC) edited 20:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Now I understand what the problem is. There is a blind knee-jerk reaction to delete any article on the 2024 election candidates with whatever reason one can word out, if they don't pass WP:NPOL even if they pass WP:NBIO and WP:GNG because there is a rush of new article creations with many presumably having little substance. I must also point out that one of the sources is from 2022 and has nothing to do with the candidacy.
The claim you make that the sources are making "passing mentions with a single paragraph" is grossly false, no other way to put it (a paragraph is also not just a "passing mention" but let's set that aside for a moment because it's more than one paragraph). Let us just randomly pick out one source from them and quote the entire part on the subject.
"Pratik Ur was the state president of SFI. He came to the center of discussion during the Panchayat elections. Left leaders alleged that opposition candidates and agents were not allowed to enter Fakir Chand College. After that Prateek Ur Rahman protested by sitting on the local streets. Prateek Ur was arrested at that time.
Prateek Ur's wife Shireen Sultana contested from Zilla Parishad seat number 59 of South 24 Parganas in the panchayat elections. He also became the Left-Congress-Indian Secular Front candidate for the Diamond Harbor Assembly constituency in Ekush assembly elections. Prateek Ur handled the responsibility of SFI for long 6 years. This year Srijan-Pratik Ur duo was released. This time a bigger responsibility is on his shoulders.
After announcing his name as a candidate, Prateek Ur Rahman said, 'I think the people of Diamond Harbor are average. Average against corruptionists. Means in favor of a healthy culture.' Also, Prateek Ur said that he does not believe in 'adversarial politics'. He said, 'I think the common people will unite against those who talk about dividing people on the basis of religion without talking about bread and sustenance.' Along with this, he has fired cannon at Trinamool. Prateek Ur said, 'We will talk about bread and rice, we will talk about the mill factory.'"
Under no logical way understanding of the term can this be called a passing mention. Most of the sources in the table are about him as the subject. I must remind those people droning about the obvious WP:NPOL failure, that at the end of WP:NPOL, it is said "An unelected candidate can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." MrMkG (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a lot of articles are going to be created especially in this election and many of them may not be notable. But that doesn't mean any and every candidate is non-notable.
Many wikipedia-notable people don't have articles and when they are made candidate, those articles get created due to the attention. I have created dozens of articles of current and former MLAs and even MPs.
They met WP:NPOL for years even decades but their articles were created now. Same applies to WP:GNG and WP:NBIO passing people. This bias is very disconcerting. MrMkG (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eisamay doesn't seem reliable to me; it's owned by The Times of India's BCCL, which itself can't establish notability for its promotional content as per WP:TOI. I never considered this a reliable source. When I mentioned sources only provide passing mentions, I was only referring reliable sources, not these unreliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 12:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you were correct, you could have chosen other sources like The Indian Express or India Today, which you mentioned in your analysis as providing in-depth coverage of the subject. However, you chose this unreliable source just to counter my argument, you can’t choose these reliable sources as these only provided passing mentions. GrabUp - Talk 12:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ei Samay isn't Times of India, completely different paper. The list you linked to has outlets from the same company with completely different ratings. Just because it's owned by the same company doesn't mean they're all the same. BCCL probably has close to a hundred outlets. I have never seen Ei Samay being accused of promotion.
But ok, you don't like Ei Samay, then there is Indian Express. (WP:INDIANEXP) You can randomly pick from them. These articles are literally about him. It is titled "CPM next-gen: Who is Pratikur Rahaman, tasked with taking on Abhishek Banerjee?".
Pratikur Rahaman, the CPI(M)’s pick, is a local. At present, the 33-year-old is a member of the CPI(M) state committee and is the national vice-president of the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), the party’s student wing. Rahaman, who studied at the Fakir Chand College in Diamond Harbour, lives on the outskirts of Diamond Harbour with his parents, brothers, wife and daughter. His family, according to party insiders, runs a construction material supply business.
“I am not fighting against any individual. My fight is against the policies of the TMC and BJP,” Rahaman told The Indian Express after his candidature was announced.
This will not be Rahaman’s first time in the poll fray. In 2021, he contested from Diamond Harbour, finishing third after Pannalal Halder of the TMC and Deepak Halder of the BJP.
“I got associated with the SFI in 2011 following which I have been assaulted by TMC goons many times. They cannot stop me with violence. I will fight back hard,” Rahaman said
Terming the TMC’s “Diamond Harbour model” as a bluff, Rahaman accused the TMC and BJP of being anti-farmer. “The prices of fertilisers are increasing while the farmers are getting poorer. We are against this policy,” the CPI(M) candidate said.
It's all similar level of coverage. You will also find more if you search and some of them will be much before the candidacy too. There is no real reason to delete the article. MrMkG (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s what I said. The reliable sources just gave passing mentions, and one paragraph of coverage is not enough to establish notability. His words mean nothing. I don’t know why you are sharing his quotes. GrabUp - Talk 13:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not one paragraph even if you ignore the quotes and again in no logical understanding can this be called "passing mention". Even if we accept this extraordinary standard, can you explain what "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" means? It is part of WP:NBIO. MrMkG (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that other reliable sources provided passing mentions, but this particular source (Indian Express) lacks depth covarage—it's just one paragraph. The main subject of these articles is the election, not this person. These sources can't establish notability because they don't provide in-depth coverage of the subject. GrabUp - Talk 13:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main subject is him as a candidate in the election. And are you unable to count? It's 5 paragraphs and ignoring the ones with quotes, it is 2 paragraphs. MrMkG (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrMkG, The consensus is nearly reached, as I can see from the comments of other editors. Your counting won't help to keep this article. Its just you the author of the article who want’s to keep the article. GrabUp - Talk 14:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know WP:CONSENSUS is determined by quality of arguments and their basis in policy not votes. But yeah I understand it might still get deleted because in actuality many admins dont follow this and only really look at votes.

Sure I am the author but your argument has no leg to stand on which you yourself can clearly understand it seems, which begs the question why do you want to delete it so badly for no apparent reason?

Btw back to the actual point. Were you saying the two which I quoted aren't passing mention but the rest which I haven't quoted yet are? Lol. Do I really have to do this? It's all similar level of coverage.

Title: Who Is 33 Year Old Pratikur Rahman? Will Contest Elections Against Abhishek Banerjee ~ About him as a candidate.

Pratikur Rahman, 33, is currently a member of the CPI(M) State Committee. He is also the national vice president of the party's student wing, Students Federation of India (SFI). He studied at Fakir Chand College, Diamond Harbour. He lives on the outskirts of Diamond Harbor with his parents, brothers, wife and daughter. His family is involved in the business of construction material supply.
Pratikur Rahman is not contesting elections for the first time, but he had also contested the assembly elections from Diamond Harbor in 2021. TMC candidate Pannalal Haldar had won that election. Pratikur Rahman was at third place with 38,719 votes, while BJP candidate Deepak Kumar Halder was at second place.

Title: Who is Pratikur Rahaman, the CPM candidate taking on Abhishek from Diamond Harbour? ~ About him as a candidate.

Rahaman, 33, chosen by the CPI (M), is a local candidate. He serves as a member of the CPI (M) state committee and holds the position of national vice-president within the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), the party's student wing. Rahaman completed his education at Fakir Chand College in Diamond Harbour and currently resides on the outskirts of Diamond Harbour with his parents, brothers, wife, and daughter. Reports say, the Left leader's family is involved in a business specialising in the supply of construction materials.
Rahman is no stranger to electoral contests, having earlier contested the assembly elections from Diamond Harbour in 2021. During that election, TMC candidate Pannalal Haldar clinched victory. Rahman secured the third position with 38,719 votes, while the BJP candidate, Deepak Kumar Halder, secured the second position.
Rahaman clarified to The Indian Express that his candidacy is not aimed at any specific individual. Instead, it represents a stand against the policies advocated by both the TMC and BJP.

How young leaders are spawning a generational shift in CPI(M) ~ About a group of young leaders in his party, he is one of the subjects of the article (2022).

Of the new young faces in CPI(M) state committee, several have shown promise, such as Minakshi Mukherjee, Srijan Bhattacharya, Mayukh Biswas and Pratikur Rahaman—all in their twenties or early thirties. Pratikur Rahaman is a good orator and has been raising his voice for the youth, particularly the unemployed who are forced to depend on the TMC government’s doles. His house in South 24 Parganas was allegedly vandalised and his family tea-stall damaged in the post-assembly poll results violence in May 2021. 

Title: Two time sitting MP Abhishek Banerjee to face challenge from CPIM’s Pratikur Rahaman and BJP’s Abhijit Das ~ About all three candidates in the election, he is one of the three subjects of the article.

The most successful party from this seat, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), has fielded the young Pratikur Rahaman as their candidate for the Diamond Harbour Lok Sabha Constituency in a bid to regain their dominance over the seat they have dominance in historically. This will be Rahman’s first attempt in mainstream politics as he has earlier served as the national vice-president of the Students Federation of India and a member of the state committee of the CPI(M) in West Bengal.

Not one of them can be called "passing mention" by any logical understanding of the term. In 2 of them it is one paragraph long and the other 4 are articles on him and multiple paragraphs long.

Let us assume, taking as strict a standard as possible that none of them individually help meet significant or substanital coverage part of WP:GNG. But it is impossible to escape the part of WP:NBIO that says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

So what is your justification? MrMkG (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said these are just routine public announcments for election, these don’t establish notability. To establish notability it require more in-depth covarage of the subject. Also, BLP require strong sources. GrabUp - Talk 15:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new thing you're saying. What is routine public announcement about them? Public announcement is what parties make, this is coverage of a person by independent newspapers, magazines and channels. Look at any other politician or political articles, the same kind of news sources are there.
Also again "if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" according to WP:NBIO (section ~ WP:BASIC) which you're ignoring since you can't give an answer to it. MrMkG (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already told you, these sources are just some paragraphs and are only about one event, the election candidacy. They all report the same information such as his name, age, candidacy, and about his wife; nothing more to establish this person as notable. Even you combine them, they just talk the same thing, what is the point to combine? GrabUp - Talk 15:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should have read what other editor said before, read this WP:BLP1E which says :
We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
  1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
GrabUp - Talk 16:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to interject. I seldom make arbitrary nominations for deletion on AfD. Prior to proposing an article for deletion, I ensure that I have conducted extensive research on the subject of the article. I am confident in my understanding of our policies and would not nominate an article for deletion if the subject, under any circumstances, meets any of our notability criteria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces, Thank you for the comment. I acknowledge your good-faith nomination and research. However, this editor doesn't understand WP:BLP1E. These sources are solely because of the candidacy, nothing more. GrabUp - Talk 16:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup You are right, that was part of the reason I nominated it, after my evaluation. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup and @Vanderwaalforces. How would you combine them? Many of them are similar but each has some unique detail or the other (for example, his family business is mentioned in just one source).
I have seen other AfDs and in any other case, these articles would have easily been called "significant coverage" for WP:GNG, afterall you can't exactly get more coverage from an article than the article being about the subject itself. And what does "just some paragraphs" even mean? Articles are created with paragraphs. What do you want? A book? You will even find some CMs who don't have chapters in books.
This is effectively just based on a feeling that the article shouldn't exist, jumping from one justification to another and seeing whatever sticks on the wall while applying an unusual and unreasonably strict standard which most notable articles wouldn't meet. From vaguely mentioning policies to claiming the sources are "passing mention" when that's obviously false to claiming sources aren't reliable and now ultimately coming up with WP:BLP1E. There is no "research" behind it, it's an after the fact attempt at justification.
BLP1E gets the closest to reasonable (and I can only thank you for that finally) and that wasn't mentioned at all before except by a different user, ignored by everyone else. But even that's not really applicable. Admittedly his coverage is heavy around the candidacy but not solely about it. Out of the six articles, one of them is from 2022 about new leaders including him in the party and has nothing to do with the candidacy. Had there in fact been research one would have found more. There is an article from 2023 about a protest led by him and his arrest. There is a page linked to WP:BLP1E called WP:BLP1ENOT, it talks about exactly this situation.
"An exceptionally common misinterpretation of BLP1E is that subjects notable primarily for one event are notable only for one event. If the article's subject has done more than one notable thing, even if the rest of it is far overshadowed by the primary event, BLP1E does not apply."
Even if we take the surge of election coverage as one, we can combine them with these and we have again met WP:NBIO's WP:BASIC criteria. Individuals don't easily have full articles written on them (most candidates don't) and the NBIO criteria is laxer than GNG seemingly by design because of this.
Also @Jeraxmoira who had actually mentioned BLP1E. MrMkG (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrMkG, I have been mentioning to you from the beginning that 'These were created due to the 2024 General Elections,' which I was referring to as WP:BLP1E. Your analysis is can't exempt this article from WP:BLP1E, as you mentioned WP:BLP1ENOT mentioned "An exceptionally common misinterpretation of BLP1E is that subjects notable primarily for one event are notable only for one event. If the article's subject has done more than one notable thing, even if the rest of it is far overshadowed by the primary event, BLP1E does not apply."
  1. Joining a political party is not a notable thing. This can't exempt this article from BLP1E.
  2. Peoplesreporter.in is not an reliable source. As there is no editorial details found on their About US or any other pages.
GrabUp - Talk 18:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. It's not about joining a party. It's about leaders in a party and it is talking about a generational shift highlighting people in the new leadership which includes him. In it there's a mention of him joining the state committee of the party.
2. We are back to claiming sources are unreliable when nothing else works now. 🤦 What you see there is what any website of a Bengali (or even Indian) news outlet looks like. Anandabazar Patrika/About Us looks the exact same, I hope you consider that reliable because if it isn't then no Bengali news outlet is. Indian news outlets very rarely if at all have anything like "editorial details" on their websites. MrMkG (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw you just changed the meaning of your first comment in this edit. Had you meant BLP1E, you would have mentioned it far earlier than you did and not made the arguments you made. But whatever it doesn't matter but mentioning it since you change makes my later comment not make sense. Don't edit comments after they are replied to. MrMkG (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't compare a mainstream Bengali media outlet with an unknown website. There are thousands of Bengali news websites on the web. Can we start to accept them as reliable? Also, there was a discussion that took place at the RS Noticeboard about its reliability, and a consensus was reached that the source, Anandabazar, is reliable. I don't think there has been any discussion about this source before considering it reliable. GrabUp - Talk 19:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point was that standard you just set for the website that isn't even met by Anandabazar.
Not being discussed before doesn't mean it is presumed unreliable. It's not an unknown website. It's a new but well regarded news website. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, who is the highest acclaimed Bengali journalist active at present publishes in there. The WP:RSPS list has similar ones like Newslaundry and The Wire, so there is no reason such a website shouldn't be considered reliable. MrMkG (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Active at present? According to the link provided, he never published anything on the website, only a video on YouTube published back in 2023. I edited my initial post to clarify that I was referring to WP:BLP1E, which you reverted, no problem. Even I assume that the source is reliable, it lacks in-depth coverage. The article itself is quite short and contains quotations from the subject. This source cannot elevate this event to notable status, which would exempt it from WP:BLP1E. GrabUp - Talk 20:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There maybe others like him historically, just being on the safe side. Publishing a video on their channel is still publishing.

Anyways, the source is sufficient to be contributing coverage for WP:BASIC, it's a short article but he is the central figure in it.

WP:BLP1E itself says that "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event". It isn't only in the context of a single event, there are at least two other articles which cover him in different contexts.

WP:BLP1ENOT mentions it too and on a complete reading of the page, "more than one notable thing" just looks like poor wording to mean anything more than that one notable thing rather than two or more notable things. The purpose of BLP1E is described as "more a courtesy we grant potentially unwilling article subjects than anything", says the criteria is very narrow and describes situations where even related minlr events can make BLP1E not applicable.

Both the pages say that two other criteria must be met besides being only covered in one event. One of them is that the person has to a "low-profile individual" (WP:LOWPROFILE) which practically no politician or political activist would really be. The subject here is involved in active public life, in protests and is an MP candidate.

Nevertheless, the interpretation you're giving would contradict WP:BASIC too which allows articles on the basis of multiple events with just less coverage. It can't be that one person who gets only multiple low coverage events can have an article and one person who gets one high coverage event and other low coverage ones can't have an article. MrMkG (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the amazing discussion, but I am not convinced that this source is reliable. I told you that there are thousands of Bengali news websites like this. Can we start to accept them as reliable? I don’t think this discussion is going to end. Let's let others and the admins decide what they think is right. Have a nice day. GrabUp - Talk 02:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. Sources are poor to unreliable. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Envy[edit]

Hero Envy (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 if the subject of the article is notable. There are at least two newspaper articles about this series, in the Leominster Champion and in the Telegram & Gazette, however, both are local sources (Worcester County, Massachusetts), and both articles are from August 2006. Hero Envy is also present in the book Internet Comedy Television Series, 1997-2015, where about 130 words are dedicated to the summary of the plot/characters, and about 75 words of additional commentary (mainly about the spin-off). The article also cites Nerd Caliber, but that doesn't seem like an RS. Perhaps I've missed something, though. toweli (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria, which says:

    Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:

    • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores.
    Sources
    1. Terrace, Vincent (2016). Internet Comedy Television Series, 1997–2015. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 129. ISBN 978-0-7864-9760-7. ProQuest 2131337447. Retrieved 2024-05-13 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Four off-the wall friends (J.D., Orson, Wally and Dekker) and how they deal with the situations they encounter as they just go about their daily activities. J.D. acts like a three-year-old but is actually 30 and lives for babes, beer and cartoons. He is also very irresponsible and has little respect for the law (or even people). Dekker, a clerk at the local comic book store (Fly on the Wall Comics), is not as out-going as his friends and is considered a loner. ... Ridiculous characters, foul language and not very convincing acting. Despite the ludicrous production a spin off was created called Hero Envy: The Swass Adventures that aired in 2009. Here, Dekker's further adventures were chronicled but in an alternate universe where he now lives with a man known only as the Toy Dealer. His efforts to return to his own time while dealing with his current situation were the focus of the program."

    2. Semon, Craig S. (2006-08-03). "Geek revival: Comic characters reborn on Web". Telegram & Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      The article notes: "In the case of “Hero Envy,” a series of “webisodes” for geeks, by geeks, it, too, has an origin. ... The brainchild of Leominster native Keith Gleason and Bolton’s Michael Hopta, “Hero Envy” evolves around the foul-mouthed and physically abusive misadventures of two childhood friends — Wally North (aka “Comicus Geekus,” played by Hopta), and his raucous roommate, J.D. Field (John Cimino of Waltham). ... With Adam Dyko behind the camera and Tom Rebello providing the cover art, a DVD featuring the first six “Hero Envy” episodes, as well as bonus features, has just been released at a cost of $10. At the recent Wizard World convention in Philadelphia, Gleason and company rented a table and sold 200 DVDs by weekend’s end."

    3. Sauvageau, Lindsay (2006-08-11). "'Hero' worship: Popular Web series has no shame 'Hero' worship". Leominster Champion. Archived from the original on 2013-01-27. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      The article notes: ""Hero Envy's" plots are characterdriven, with the series featuring four main characters that represent what Gleason refers to as four areas of "geekdom." Specifically, each is decked out with attributes highlight that character's individual obsessions: comic books, old cartoons/ merchandise, video games and movies in the science fiction and horror genres. These are also the obsessions of their real-life counterparts."

    4. ""Webisódios" viram febre nos EUA" ["Webisodes" become a rage in the USA]. Folha de S.Paulo (in Spanish). 2006-06-12. ProQuest 335932182.

      The article provides 57 words about the subject. The article notes: "É dessa arena que vem "Hero Envy" ("Inveja de Herói"), série escrita e atuada por uma turma de amigos fissurados em HQs de super-heróis, com trama baseada em um roteiro que nunca encontrou financiamento para se converter em longa-metragem. A produção caseira começou a ser rodada no ano passado e já gerou sete episódios de dez minutos."

      From Google Translate: "It is from this arena that "Hero Envy" comes, a series written and acted by a group of friends obsessed with superhero comics, with a plot based on a script that never found financing to be turned into a feature-length film. footage. The home production began filming last year and has already generated seven ten-minute episodes."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hero Envy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - cunard has found some excellent sources proving that enough WP:NEXISTs to meet notability guidelines Hopefully some will get incorporated, but there is no longer a need to delete. -2pou (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had brought up three of those sources, except the 57 word one in my nomination for deletion message; Cunard didn't find them. My concern is that both of the newspaper sources are very local, and are both from August 2006. toweli (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough... apologies for the miscredit. I guess the intent was to thank Cunard for the sources being conveniently quoted here for easy access. I have long held a low bar to clear such as WP:100WORDS and just 2 sources to pass GNG. I believe that this satisfies that. The spinoff is also covered by this article, so I interpreted it as lumping them together more as a "franchise" article.Regarding the locality of the newspapers, I can't say much about the Leominster Champion, but Telegram & Gazette seems to be decently sized for the region and owned by the NYT at the time as opposed to a strictly regional operation. As to the age of the works, I don't hold that against it per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. -2pou (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: sources brought by Cunard are enough to show it's notable. 2 are from regional papers from 2006 but that does not make them less reliable. The other 2 are a significant mention in a book and the Folha de S. Paulo (which, for the record, is in Portuguese not Sp.), a major Brazilian newspaper. Thanks -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Edit: Sources brought by Toweli and Cunard, thanks both. Quod caesaris, apologies.[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Andy Stirling. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Politics of Uncertainty[edit]

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

I don't see much for this article being a standalone one. Can a redirect work here? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The book seemingly has reception, but that section is horribly written. I can't make out what "For [10] this volume illuminates" is supposed to mean. Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Andy Stirling, the co-editor, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives for deletion. Although the book is cited in numerous articles and books, I did not find book reviews or other significant coverage of the book in my searches for sources. The book does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for this input. I tried to improve the obscure paragraph noted by User:Geschichte. Other than that I regret that I have not much to add to what written in the talk page. The book is well cited as you note, and its presence on the pages of Wikipedia may encourage others to join the discussion on this important topic. Best! Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect as suggested by Cunard. I was able to access several of the citations in the "reception" section, but they are simple citations of the work, not reviews or a particular indication of lasting influence.
    • The first sentence, For[10] this volume illuminates how governments and private actors... is citing an article on the same topic, which says of this book nothing more than: STS scholars also argue that many governmental and organisational bodies (e.g. insurance) that attempt to deal with non-knowledge formulate uncertainty as risk and so, by rendering non-knowledge into calculable risk, reduce the world in particular ways that favour managerialism and de-emphasise other ways of knowing and living (Scoones & Stirling, 2020).
    • The second footnote in reception is a podcast, non-RS
    • The third footnote in reception, attached to the statement The book is cited in debates about sustainability transition and transformation refers to this sentence and footnote: Hence, the issue sometimes is not around changing policy for the better but instead fighting a malignant transformation [1], footnoting [1] At this juncture, we argue that it is important to embrace the inherent uncertainty in transformations and answer the questions put forth by Scoones and Stirling (2020) clearly before branding any transformation as benign or malign: ‘What methods, processes and mobilizations can tilt the balance towards more positive outcomes?'
    • The fourth footnote in reception has nothing in the source other than what's currently quoted in the article.
It's not nothing, but it's also not really enough coverage to write an effective article from. I don't think any of these sources actually provide information for a reception section -- they are just very brief summaries of the main points of the book. This is the sort of book that ought to be able to get two reviews. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:49, 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! 22:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanche Finlay[edit]

Blanche Finlay (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:NSINGER, WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:30, 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 keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miami International Holdings[edit]

Miami International Holdings (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:NCORP. 6 of the 11 references are non-rs and routine business news scope_creepTalk 11:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I've gone ahead to add several WP:RS/WP:INDEPENDENT references from Bloomberg, Reuters, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology.
I've also added segments that reference news coverage on some prolonged controversy and lawsuits involving other companies to meet substantial coverage requirements as per WP:ORGDEPTH, and how the firm has first-ever approval to operate a derivatives exchange for digital assets in the US.
Keep. With these changes, a majority of the 22 references should be WP:RS with several intended to meet WP:N/WP:SIGCOV requirements that are not routine business events or have significance at regulatory level that has implications to national WP:AUD, e.g. IPO, lawsuits from or against other major international corporations, provision of a major financial index.
- Cara Wellington (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of the other pages. Pinging @Scope creep: for an opinion as they did the BEFORE. Wondering if it should be merged into one of the exchanges already listed in Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I share @Dclemens1971's position in Afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MIAX Pearl Equities). There is enough coverage to separate parent company from several of its MIAX Exchange group of subsidiaries, just like there is enough coverage for Minneapolis Grain Exchange. Merging the two would be difficult due to coverage and content differences. Cara Wellington (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pulling this over from the Pearl Equities discussion, I also wish to point out that there's a long history of precedence on how these have been handled once the subsidiary exchange has reached WP:GNG, even for exchanges that have shown lesser depth of independent references than MIAX Pearl Equities has demonstrated. For example, but not limited to:
Exchanges frequently change ownership and this ends up becoming unmaintainable if you're constantly merging them upstream to their parent even after they've established any level of content independence.
That's why I strongly recommend a Keep over a merge. Cara Wellington (talk) 16:37, 9 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! 20:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it details the significant impact of the company on the financial markets, including the operation of multiple exchanges such as MIAX Options, which influence trading and market stability. Additionally, the company's innovative contributions to trading technology and its role in expanding the financial infrastructure warrant its inclusion as a notable subject on Wikipedia. --Assirian cat (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps @Scope creep can withdraw their nomination to end this more quickly? I note that they had already done that for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MIAX Pearl Equities which was nominated at the same time and for similar reasons, and further they seem to have been satisfied after this revision.
Maybe you can assist with me with what I was looking for above. Can you point out the references that meet WP:ORGCRIT? References for this particular entity, not the others.
Look at the sources I linked in my 6 May post above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Dclemens1971. Cara Wellington (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. There has not been much discussion despite two relistings. However, nobody is arguing to keep, so it's between delete and draftify. The lone draftify argument "in anticipation" seems a bit like crystal-balling. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Porsche Carrera Cup Middle East[edit]

2023–24 Porsche Carrera Cup Middle East (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. Stats-only article for a season with no sources other than themselves about a series which doesn't have an article. GNG sourcing of the season per se is unfindable and unlikely to exist. The series itself would probably be a good topic for an article. But there is nothing here to move to it. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First to reinforce, this article is not about the series, it's stats for 1 season of the series. There is no article for the series. On your question, I'm never sure that something doesn't exist but I looked and couldn't find any real coverage of the season, much less GNG coverage. North8000 (talk) 00:01, 30 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! 11:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Porsche Carrera Cup Middle East could be notable, but I don't see enough coverage for this collection of stats. Cortador (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are some sources mentioning PCCME - Australians talking about Walls and Jones (here), or Middle Eastern sources referring to PCCME as a F1 or WEC support event (here). The series is notable as a support event on two Formula One events, as well as WEC support during 1st Bahrain round. Apart from that, a lot of notable drivers took part in the races including Theo Oeverhaus, Harry King, Harri Jones, Robert de Haan or F3 Charlie Wurz. The series doesn't have an article, as it's very new, but it may be created by me in coming days. So, I think that the season is notable enough to not delete the article. Maceekim (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of a parent topic isn't passed down to articles of the same topic. Cortador (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, seasons are not presumed notable under the SNG. So the the relevant definition of wp:notability is having suitable GNG coverage, not the elements which you are listing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify in anticipation of the series article being created. It is new and looks pretty notable, and having this in draft space is completely fine. Geschichte (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 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 keep‎. The discussion on how to better organize this information can continue on some article Talk page or, even better, maybe a WikiProject Talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of listed buildings in Dundee[edit]

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

As noted by Dunarc on the talk page in Feb 2020, the listing of hundreds of listed buildings in the civil parish of Dundee arbitrarily divided between sequentially numbered sub-pages clearly violates WP:NOTDATABASE. For the US equivalents of the list of U.S. National Historic Landmarks by state, we divide the lists by state to give no page more than 150 entries, even dividing the New York list between the sites within and outside New York City to trim the list length. Similarly, we divide the United States National Register of Historic Places listings by county to avoid more than 200 entries per list. If the number of listed buildings in civil parish of Dundee is too numerous to fit in a single article, then it dilutes their claim to a gigantic list article under WP:NBUILDING. Thus, the fact that these sites are listed buildings should be reserved for Wikidata attributes, article categories, and infobox markers. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 20:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating these six sub-pages for violating WP:SUB to host the contested mainspace content of Dundee's listed buildings across arbitrary divisions to avoid excessive length:

List of listed buildings in Dundee/1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Dundee/2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Dundee/3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Dundee/4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Dundee/5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Dundee/6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lastly, under the same argument that if article creator Multichill could not identify a rational way to split the hundreds of listed buildings in the civil parishes of Aberdeen, Edinburgh, and Glasgow, as they did when creating similar, smaller list articles through a combination of manual and bot editing in May 2012, then these massive list articles arbitrarily split across sub-pages should be similarly deleted. In talk page archives, Multichill received criticism from multiple editors for this approach to list creation, admitting that with hundreds of listed buildings in these four civil parishes, there is no clear way to present the content. None of these lists appear to be widely referenced in wikilinks, aside from their inclusion in their respective cities' navboxes.

List of listed buildings in Aberdeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Aberdeen/1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Aberdeen/2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Aberdeen/3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Aberdeen/4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Aberdeen/5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Aberdeen/6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Aberdeen/7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/16 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/19 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/21 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/23 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/24 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/25 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/26 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/27 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/28 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/29 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/30 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/31 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/32 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/33 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Glasgow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Glasgow/1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Glasgow/2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Glasgow/3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Glasgow/4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Glasgow/5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Glasgow/6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Glasgow/7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Glasgow/8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Glasgow/9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Glasgow/10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Glasgow/11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Glasgow/12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of listed buildings in Glasgow/13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
You're comparing an European country with the USA when it comes to historic buildings? These are old cities with a long history and plenty of old buildings. Lists are more like List of New York City Designated Landmarks in Manhattan from 14th to 59th Streets.
Can you please clarify what part of WP:NOTDATABASE is "clearly violated"?
WP:NBUILDING seems to apply if an article about every building would be created. These are lists and not lists of all buildings, only the ones that are listed. Each entry links to a page describing why it's listed. Lists of historic buildings are notable.
So the only thing left is how it is split up, I have a link for that one {{Sofixit}}.
@Dr. Blofeld and Nyttend: I think you worked on this back in the day. Multichill (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I cited WP:NOTDATABASE in regard to the arbitrary division of hundreds of listed buildings across sub-lists. Second, you are correct in arguing that WP:NLIST is more relevant than WP:NBUILDING, and WP:NLIST defers to the WP:LISTPURP guideline to keep informational lists. Whereas Manhattan is a rectangular island amenable to demarcating landmarks by their street number, the next closest geographic distinguisher for these four Scottish cities appears to be postal codes, which adheres to the relevant AfD precedent (see below). Do you think this would work? BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 05:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello from Dundee! I would say that the arrangement of the Dundee lists really is pretty arbitrary - they bounce around the city at random, and they often don't use the common names for the buildings so it's hard to recognise what's what. Historic Environment Scotland is where I'd normally go to find this kind of information - it has maps, descriptions and often pictures. Maybe reducing the list to just the few buildings that are likely to have Wikipedia articles would make more sense? Adam Sampson (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. These are part of a comprehensive series of lists, nationwide (I believe) or common throughout the country. Deleting the lists for just a few bits of the UK would be preposterous. Moreover, for US lists, we typically subdivide by neighbourhood, or (if nothing else will work) by first letter: "List of listed buildings in Glasgow: A", etc. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, thanks for the work Multichill and you did creating these articles on listed buildings! Looking through the AfD archives, I found WP:Articles for deletion/Listed buildings in Liverpool kept the list of Liverpool's >2500 listed buildings by splitting entries based on the city's 25 postal codes. The DD postcode area has eleven districts for Dundee, the AB postcode area has twelve districts within Aberdeen, the EH postcode area has twenty districts for Edinburgh, and the G postcode area has 57 for Glasgow and its surrounding towns. I think this approach to splitting will be more effective because many of the listed buildings are officially named with the address, rather than a distinct name of a former business or occupant. Thus, alphanumeric sorting and sub-division may result in confusion if consecutive entries between 1 Sample St and 2 Example Ave are on opposite ends of the city. Your thoughts? BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 05:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The splitting is indeed not optimal (just last week, I added a few pictures for Edinburgh, and I had to spend quite some time to find in which lists the entries were), but this is not the reason to delete. I would advocate arranging the lists by street name alphabetically (smth like List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/A-B), and where it does not apply make a separate list. Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is a decision on alphabetical reordering, I would be willing to help. Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Nyttend. Listed buildings are notable and a tabled list is the way to go in cases where there isn't enough for an article. I would rather split the list alphabetically rather than number them though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Strange. When we have articles on individual listed buildings we're told by some editors they should be redirected to a list like this. And when a list like this is created we're told by other editors that we shouldn't have lists like this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless replaced by a set of better organised lists - eg by council ward or Community Council Area. Alternatively could all the tables be put on a single page (not a single large table)? - but this may not meet other guidelines. These lists were very useful in the early days of Wiki Loves Monuments. Although there is now an upload tool linked to a map for the competition, it can still be useful to see listed buildings in an area (particularly in towns which only have a single list). AlasdairW (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for re-organisation – I had been planning to do so with Glasgow. Completely agree that the current divisions are arbitrary, illogical and do not aid navigation in any way. However, it is appropriate that such lists exist, and there are too many to keep them in a single article for cities of this size. I propose that these instead be split between council wards – not perfect as the boundaries can change (though there hasn't been much change since multi-member wards were created in 2007), and there will be great disparities between them (e.g a handful in Greater Pollok (ward) and hundreds in Hillhead (ward)), but it follows both consistency on this site, where non-urban areas have been divided geographically into civil parishes without much objection AFAIK, and on the British Listed Buildings website, which would in turn make it much easier to re-organise the entries with something to refer back to. There would also be a manageable number of articles. Open to suggestion on alternative criteria; alphabetical order is not ideal in my opinion as many of the entries begin with building numbers and are known by multiple names, in many cases it would still be very difficult for the average reader to find entries (or at least, it has been for me when I've had to do so), albeit I realise many also won't be familiar with what ward covers what area either, even in their home country / city. Crowsus (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My suggestion was alphabetical order of the streets (which is also not ideal, because there are sometimes multiple streets, and sometimes none, but better that it is now). Wards are also fine but then someone should go ahead and propose the structure, I have no idea about wards of Edinburgh for example. Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @AlasdairW and @Crowsus, you both have suggested using ward boundaries, but I want to highlight that as recently as 2016, the Scottish government changed 25 ward boundaries, including in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, and Glasgow. Thus, not only is it quite difficult to figure out the associated ward for the thousands of sites we need to sort, but we would also lack an easy way to tell which listed buildings shifted into another ward as their boundaries change.
    @Dr. Blofeld and @Ymblanter, you both suggested alphabetizing by street name, but consider the two primary use cases for these lists. First, someone wants a directory of the listed buildings in Scottish cities where any sub-categorization method will suffice. Second, someone wants to know which listed buildings exist in their area, in which case we need a sub-categorization method forced on the site's geographic position. Thus, I want to reiterate that sub-categorizing by postal codes seems like the simplest solution because their boundaries have minimally changed, and even if they change, the mismatch between the list entry and updated maps would be immediately apparent for fixing. Given that these sub-lists already include the coordinates, it seems like a simple process to find their postal code on Google Maps. As previously noted, the listed buildings in Liverpool page showcases that this approach is feasible. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 16:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But imagine I have a building in Edinburgh and I have the street address, can I easily convert it to a postal code? Ymblanter (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, at random I have chosen the 18th entry on List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/18, which is "St Bernard's Crescent 1 And 12 Leslie Place." Plugging the entry's listed coordinates into Google Maps, I get a matching pin over 1 Leslie Place that Google Maps tells me is within the EH4 postal code. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 18:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, using the postcode would be the slowest method, as the Historic Scotland listings do not include this so it would have to be done for every single building. By contrast, the street name is already in the listing in most cases so at least that would be quicker. For the wards, as I've said, British Listed Buildings already subdivided the buildings into council area, then into (post-2016) ward, so it would be a lot more straightforward to organise them. If the postcode option is favoured by the majority, I would suggest using those lists as a starting point as obviously most of the wards have some correlation with postal districts (I think Govan (ward) and the G51 postcode are pretty much the same boundaries) so it would make the task slightly easier than working through the randomised list articles we have currently. Crowsus (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That link is currently returning error messages for me on both Microsoft Edge and Firefox. Were you able to access it today? BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 01:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah it worked fine for me now (Desktop, Edge browser / link created from mobile, Chrome). Crowsus (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, the site is working for me now! For Dundee, it reports that 287 listed buildings are in the Ferry Ward, 404 listed buildings are in the West End Ward, and 471 listed buildings are in the Maryfield Ward. I think that 250 listed buildings is the limit of readability, so I would argue that sub-division by ward does not work here, but I suppose we need numbers for comparison, so I will try to see how Dundee's listed buildings split by zip code when I return from a trip tomorrow. Thanks for your input! BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 12:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately the zip/postcode situation will be similar, Dundee only has 5 postcodes for the whole city and splitting them up into sub-codes beyond that (DD1 2--, DD1 3-- etc) would be bewildering even to locals IMO. Perhaps alphabetical would be the best option, as any geographic division in all cases would skew towards probably-unmanageably high numbers for the city centre, with other occasional spikes at other historic areas (e.g around University of Glasgow campus = 843 buildings in its ward, which is only covered by parts of 3 postcodes). Crowsus (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, I don't necessarily disagree with a 250 limit, but is that some kind of site technical/guideline or your own judgement? AFAIK, List of Category A listed buildings in Glasgow contains all the relevant sites, which according to British Listed Buildings should be 795. Crowsus (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SPLITLIST does not specify a limit, so I used ~250 as a rough threshold for readability when the individual entries are fairly short. While British Listed Buildings notes 795 Category A sites in Glasgow, only 282 of them are in the associated article, and if that article were updated/improved to include all of the Category A sites, I suspect there would be consensus to sub-divide it too. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 13:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah sorry, the discrepancy is probably due to that website counting each individual building that forms part of a listing, while the WP article goes by one entry per HES listing (which is the correct way IMO) - for example, #774 and #775 on BLB are both for Trades House, and the link for both entries ties to a common HES page, #LB32713. Not sure why they have done it that way, surely its more straightforward for them to stick with the divisions HES decided on?? Anyway, that's not our problem, although probably makes it slightly trickier for us as otherwise it's a useful cross-reference for these lists. PS Sorry just spotted this was now closed. Crowsus (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A mess, but a fixable mess. I think there is a community consensus that these types of lists are generally notable for geographic regions with significant historical records.  // Timothy :: talk  16:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even if not all listed buildings are notable these lists seem appropriate per WP:NLIST and provide us a place to discuss listed buildings that aren't notable enough for their own article and yes the fact the likes of Dundee have been split are simply because these parishes contain many listed buildings so would be too large for a single list. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arkadia Joint Lyceum[edit]

Arkadia Joint Lyceum (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)

Local high school in Finland fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. All available significant coverage is from official websites. Media coverage exists, but it is either in local news providing list-style coverage of high school graduates and test scores, or it is routine coverage in news related to school openings and closings. One news story appears to constitute significant coverage, but one is not enough to clear the hurdle. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:08, 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 23:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party for the Development of Carchuna[edit]

Democratic Party for the Development of Carchuna (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 couldn't find evidence it meets WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 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 redirect‎ to Milroy Goes#Filmography. Owen× ☎ 00:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Victim (2012 film)[edit]

The Victim (2012 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)

The film seems to lack notability, as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. The current sources in the article are mere announcements of its release and rely solely on statements from the film's producer. Despite being released in 2012, the film failed to garner any reviews. Fails WP:NFILM. GSS 💬 19:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Milroy Goes#Filmography. CharlesWain (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Sharabeel[edit]

Shah Sharabeel (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)

So, the BLP claims the subject is a DIREVTOR, but it appears the only thing he's directed is some show called "Twins Apart" The issue I'm seeing is that the coverage about this show is mostly in The News, like this, this and this. And per WP:SIGCOV, multiple publications from the same author or organization usually count as a single source, so at most, they count as one source. And I did find coverage on his show in other RS such as the Express Tribune like this, but nothing else. Also, it appears he has only directed this one show, which received some coverage in RS. So, is merely directing one show enough to pass WP:NDIRECTOR? Seems like a very ROTM DIRECTOR to me. This also raises the question: if anyone just directs a drama and gets some press coverage on it, do they automatically qualify for a Wikipedia BLP?

No offense to the creator of this page, of course but only a UPE would bother creating a BLP for such a ROTM director. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all Saqib, i am not a UPE, and don't get personal everytime by calling this term without any evidence as admin has already warned you multiple times. Secondly if it is a case of UPE, then why the article is stub and with that much less data. You can check history i never added material or promotional tone after creation.

As to why i voted delete, I saw his work in a theatre and created his page after checking coverage in RS. Anyways, Did'nt even remembered him since then. Although he still has a coverage on reliable sources but i dont think theatre actor can have a wikipidea article & i am not a UPE who will be affected after deletion. Libraa2019 (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- lack of sigcov of more than one notable work. Happy to change my vote if someone discovers a ref that give a good description of his directing or acting. BTW, the article doesn't even say that he is an actor, so I deleted the assertion from the IB and categories. Is he? If so, the article should say so. And the refs should go immediately after the fact that they are verifying, rather than all lumped together. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compugoal College[edit]

Compugoal College (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 exists but I don't think it meets WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:41, 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 keep‎. Owen× ☎ 00:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of movie theaters[edit]

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

This appears to be an underinclusive and unnecessary duplication of Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country, which includes many more theaters which are not on this list. I don't believe this page is particularly useful as a stand-alone list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an absurdly incomplete list. Taking France as an example, the creator seems to think that Paris is all there is in France, unaware that the oldest cinema still in operation after 125 years, is in La Ciotat (https://edencinemalaciotat.com/le-plus-ancien-cinema-du-monde/). Similar problems apply in other countries, for example Chile, which apparently has just one cinema, though I saw Jurassic Park and The Color Purple in two different ones. Even if the list was made complete it would still be pointless. Athel cb (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is obviously only a list of notable movie theaters that have articles because they are historic or otherwise significant, which is a typical criterion for SALs. It needs some clean-up and is likely missing many, but I don't think we have an article on the oldest theater in La Ciotat so of course it's not on here. Reywas92Talk 16:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      OK. I failed to notice the qualification "notable enough for Wikipedia articles," but it's still a ridiculous list. You are right that there is no "article on the oldest theater in La Ciotat", but there damn well should be. Athel cb (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps you could make it? Then we should consider how List of oldest cinemas is not an article, but certainly notable. Conyo14 (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps I will, but I'm not sure my knowledge is sufficient. La Ciotat is about 45 minutes drive from where I live (at least, it would be if I still drove significant distances). I've passed the Eden Cinema, but I've never been inside. Athel cb (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would note that Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country is, of course, organized by country -- which is how this list is organized too. The difference is that there are a number of cinemas which Wikipedia has articles about, but which are not listed here on List of movie theaters. So this list is trying to fulfill the same function as Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country, but not as well since it doesn't include all of the movie theaters that already have Wikipedia articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. With some work and dedication it has the potential to be an informative list of historical/notable theaters. Archives908 (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm kind of leery of a page like this, though. The amount of work it would need to maintain would be kind of exhausting. I think that a far more manageable option would be for the page to limit itself to something like "oldest movie theater" by country, with the further requirement being that the theater would either have to be still operational OR the building itself would still have to be standing, in the case of a company that's now defunct but the building still stands. Otherwise this is a page that could potentially contain hundreds upon thousands of theaters. It would also be kind of prone to people coming around to list their mini (non-notable) theater as well. I'm not using that as an argument to delete mind you, just say that a page like this needs to be more limited out of necessity to make it more encyclopedic. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Allows an organised overview with photographs and notes, which a category cannot do. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:35, 2 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! 11:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to Lists of cinemas: LISTCRUFT with an impossibly broad scope but if renamed it could be a set index for Category:Lists of cinemas.  // Timothy :: talk  14:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reasonable index/navigational aid which doesn't duplicate a category per WP:NOTDUP. That said, I'm sympathetic to the idea that such a broad list presents a challenge to maintain, but I don't know just how often we get notable individual movie theaters and there's always the possibility of spinning out country-based lists. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742)[edit]

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742) (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: NOTABILITY. The event is a part of the Maratha invasions of Bengal, and the prelude of First Battle of Katwa. Not much coverage in WP:RS, except some scattered lines. Not enough coverage in reliable sources for an article; and "Plunder of Murshidabad" is WP:OR as such an event is not named by any Historians. Imperial[AFCND] 09:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. The nawabi had since 1740 been ruled by a Turkish adventurer, Alivardi Khan, who had, from the abundant treasury at Murshidabad, sent two crores of rupees to Delhi to secure his nomination as nawab. The British found him ready to sustain the conditions in which business flourished, but he was no match for the Marathas, who swept into Bengal in April 1742 and plundered Murshidabad. Their outfliers caused panic in Calcutta where the Company began to dig the Maratha ditch to keep them out. For the next seven years the golden province of Bengal was afflicted by roving armies, until Alivardi Khan bought off the Marathas by paying chauth of 12 lakhs of rupees a year. The merchants of Calcutta trembled, but one merchant in Bengal saw only advantage in the weakness of formerly powerful Mughal princes in the face of Maratha attack.
3. <ref>{{Cite book |last=Cavaliero |first=Roderick |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BxKJDwAAQBAJ&newbks=0&hl=en |title=Strangers in the Land: The Rise and Decline of the British Indian Empire |date=2002-06-28 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-0-85771-707-8 |language=en}}</ref>
4. There are already articles on Wikipedia which are based on the place name where the event took place and this doesn't violate WP:OR. Akshunwar (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vinegarymass911's findings. Courtesy mentioning @ToadetteEdit as you reviewed the draft at AFC, you could probably provide some thoughts. X (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – passes notability guidelines, per above !votes. ToadetteEdit! 23:25, 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 speedy keep. An application of WP:SKCRIT#3 in that the nominator made claims about "Anything notable in this article" while failing to notice the subject's membership in a national legislature, which has now been verified in the article, and routinely leads to a keep outcome. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan G. Rasmussen[edit]

Stefan G. Rasmussen (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:BIO1E. Anything notable in this article is contained in SAS Flight 751. CapitalSasha ~ talk 19:15, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Germany, Indiana[edit]

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

Another spot back-entered to the topos from that 1870s atlas; Baker is really the only source besides that, which hasn't proven good enough. I tried looking for this in Baird's history of the county, but there are over a thousand occurrences of the word, so that was hopeless. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Baird [7] was very unimpressed with this place, as am I, see pg 86.James.folsom (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more policy-based discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:13, 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! 22:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge of the Killer Robots from Hell[edit]

Revenge of the Killer Robots from Hell (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 sources below do not provide the necessary WP:DEPTH needed for an article on the topic, and I can't find any that would. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:27, 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 no consensus‎. Editors remain divided between keep, delete, and two different merge options after two relists and extensive discussion. It is possible that further discussion on a talk page may consolidate a case for a merge, but at this time I do not see any consensus emerging from this AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 18:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Computer network naming scheme[edit]

Computer network naming scheme (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's self-evident that people who have a bunch of computers and want to assign them names according to some sort of system do so, and that the systems are completely arbitrary, and that they are often inconsistently followed, and that people who aren't into naming systems either don't give them names or pick an arbitrary name each time if they have to. It's just not a subject, period, much less encyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article is poorly written as is, and shouldn't focus so much on personal naming schemes, but the topic is definitely encyclopedic. The Domain Name System is the most prominent naming scheme, and there are other minor examples, such as the GNU Name System, and naming systems for Content centric networking (e.g. [12]). There needs to be an article on the general topic. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there even a name for this class of things? If I search for this exact phrase, I get six GHits, which either make no sense or still seem to depend on this WP article. Also, it seems to me that GNU Name System is simply a GNUish implementation of DNS, and that CCN doesn't even align with the notion of naming at all. Even ignoring the need for WP:TNT, I'm not convinced that this article name is the proper stating point, or even that thee is a thing to write an article about. Mangoe (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Naming system" or "Network naming" might be a better title. I trimmed out most of the unsourced content and added a bit more content with a source that discusses network naming systems in general. There are definitely other sources that could be used (e.g. [13]). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per [14] and [15], or at the very least merge to Computer networks. Conyo14 (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see how those sources count toward verifiability, but not really towards notability. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources (RFCs etc.). Also Computer name, another clearly notable topic, redirects to this article. Coverage definitely could be improved in this area but deleting this is an unproductive WP:DEMOLISH. ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to think that there is a subject here, and that this could be demonstrated from text books (although maybe the subject is actually hierarchical naming schemes). But WP:DEMOLISH surely can't apply to a 20 year old article. And RFCs are a primary source, and RFC 2100 is actually a joke - one of a series of 1 April RFCs. I considered whether the subject is really DNS, but no - naming schemes exist in other spaces and domains too. LDAP, for instance. But what makes the scheme notable is likely the addition of structure. Ad hoc naming is not an independently notable subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally agree that DEMOLISH does not apply here. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs to be improved, but it definetly can be and is notable. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge I just don't see any evidence that this is a sufficiently notable subject for a stand-alone article. Mangoe's nomination puts it very well, the smattering of coverage that has been brought up here doesn't seem to me to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing how this is distinctly and coherently notable. It seems all of this info is better covered within its particular context at namespace? JoelleJay (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be fine with a redirect to directory service, per Sirfurboy. JoelleJay (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Directory service. This one is tricky, but one thing I do believe is that the page should not be kept as it is. It has been around 20 years and it has not really settled on any independently notable subject. But a redirect to namespace, which seems like a good idea, is perhaps not the best as the namespaces that page primarily talks about are concerned with coding. Network naming gets talked about in various texts, but usually with respect to naming services and distributed systems. For instance Forouzan's Data Communication and Networking [16], page 910 in the fifth edition, discusses naming but in the context of the discussion of the DNS. The notable subject is the directory service, and the directory service page also links to namespace. Naming a computer is no more notable than naming anything else as a concept in itself, but naming computers in a manner that allows for distributed systems to uniquely identify nodes is indeed a notable subject, and there are plenty of papers and discussions of this. Indeed, whole books about it. So I think a redirect to Directory Service is suitable. There is, perhaps, a spinout page from Directory Services that is possible - an analysis of naming schemes (LDAP has a lot of literature on that) but I don't think this title is quite right for that, and as a result the content of this page is trying to be one thing and also another. If this were kept, I would want it kept on the basis it would be renamed and appropriately focussed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see the directory service article when looking for existing articles. A redirect seems like a good idea. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more discussion about the merge/redirect target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment So I think we have a consensus on what the thing is that people in the discussion are thinking of, but there's still the problem that the name we have here is patently something someone made up one day. GBook hits are zero; JSTOR hits are zero; GHits, as I said above, are very few and seem likely to be the product of page scraping. Is there any reason not to delete a term that nobody is actually using? Mangoe (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the name is the only problem, it would be preferable to rename instead of deleting. ~Kvng (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Computer network isn't a bad idea, but I think merging into Hostname would be better. The idea being discussed in this (very short) page is how to come up with names for devices on a network, and Hostname already has some discussion of what kinds of names people use. Adam Sampson (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a better merge target suggestion than Directory service suggested by Sirfurboy above. ~Kvng (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Hostname isn't a bad suggestion, and we could redirect there, and, indeed, if anyone wanted to merge content to there that makes sense for what the page currently contains, but I think Directory service is the better location for the redirect because the title has scheme in it, and that scheme is specifically a scheme of naming applied to computer networks. That, to me, is clearly "naming and directory services", a textbook subject that would refer to LDAP, DNS, X.500 etc. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:02, 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. Complex/Rational 19:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Malitz[edit]

Isaac Malitz (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)

Autobiography sourced only to a database entry. No publications found in MathSciNet or Google Scholar; no evidence of academic notability nor of notability for more than one thing. My prod saying all this was removed by User:Kvng with no justification for disputing it, and with a suggestion to instead merge to positive set theory. There was nothing to merge; everything in this article was already there. I removed it from the positive set theory article as well because it was unsourced and had no hope of being sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with proposal to delete. Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:37, 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 Goldfields-Esperance newspapers. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers published in Kalgoorlie-Boulder[edit]

Newspapers published in Kalgoorlie-Boulder (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)

Proposed merge into Goldfields-Esperance newspapers. As far as I can see, all of these papers are already listed at the linked article. Does not seem necessary to me. Adam Black talk • contributions 17:01, 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 redirect‎ to List of Italy national rugby union players. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enrico Patrizio[edit]

Enrico Patrizio (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 Italy national rugby union players as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:53, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Cerioni[edit]

Cristian Cerioni (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)

Poorly sourced rugby BLP with no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of in-depth coverage available online. All I found was routine transfer news (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 16:45, 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 redirect‎ to Zarah (entertainer). Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Have We Become? (song)[edit]

What Have We Become? (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)

Fails WP:NSONG. Created by a SPA who appears to be behind several articles related to Zarah (entertainer), none of which appear to be notable. The best source here, American Songwriter, is an article about the song which is allegedly the influence for this one... naturally, it has nothing to do with this song and doesn't mention Zarah at all. Once you remove this and the source from Zarah's own website, we are left with four sources, none of which pass RS, and all of which are PR sites that advertise for submissions for review – the interviews in Illustrate and A&R Factory (something of a giveaway there) are anonymous. Looking at the profile of the writer behind the Turtle Tempo piece, it states that her job at the website is being "tasked with approaching upcoming artists, offering them a chance to garner a larger fanbase via the medium of paid reviews or interviews."[17] So all of this is appears to be paid-for promotion, and there is no evidence of independent notability. Richard3120 (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zarah (entertainer) per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:22, 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. Complex/Rational 19:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamharian Perfumes[edit]

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

Previously prodded, fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage, almost entirely promotional. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:26, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chamak Damak[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 15:09, 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 no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion at this time. BD2412 T 21:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Lawlor[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a sports figure, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for sportspeople. To be fair, at the time this was first created, Wikipedia had a consensus that simple presence at the Olympics was an automatic inclusion lock regardless of medal placement or sourcing issues -- but that's long since been deprecated, and a non-medalist now has to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability.
But a WP:BEFORE search turned up very little that could be used to salvage the article: apart from Olympic results reporting itself, I largely just get glancing namechecks of his existence and local high-school-athlete coverage rather than coverage that's substantively about him in any notability-building sense. I've further been completely unable to verify this article's claim that he was born in Sudbury — even the database entry present here as the article's sole source fails to claim that, and his local high-school-athlete coverage is found in Ottawa, not Sudbury. (And yes, I get that it's possible for people to be born in one place and then move to another, but we still need to be able to verify claims about a person's birthplace.)
Finishing ninth in an Olympic event just isn't "inherently" notable enough anymore to exempt him from ever having to have more reliable source coverage than I've been able to find. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ottawa Citizen is the local hometown coverage I mentioned in my nomination statement, the St. Cat's Standard is just a short blurb that nominally verifies a fact but is not long enough to imbue said fact with any notability points, and the Harbour City Star hit is literally just an advertorial to sell aquatic sport clothing that Tyler Lawlor is modelling, not an article about Tyler Lawlor doing anything noteworthy. So the Ottawa Citizen is still all we've actually got for GNG-worthy coverage, and that's still "local guy" coverage in his hometown newspaper (i.e. not enough if it's all he's got). Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ottawa Citizen is one of the largest newspapers in Canada, and as such should be given the full weight of a normal significant source (esp. considering that locality of coverage is irrelevant). The Harbour City Star piece: yes, it is about a business of Lawlor's, but it seems to be written by a valid journalist by a valid company (Southam Newspapers, owned by Postmedia Network) – it seems to have enough details on him IMO to be categorized as covering him "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" – as far as I'm aware a source does not need to cover someone for them doing something one subjectively things is "noteworthy" to be considered significant. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody dismissed the Ottawa Citizen on size grounds, but all newspapers can still cover local residents in local-interest contexts that don't necessarily clinch nationalized or internationalized notability in and of themselves for a person who has virtually nothing wider than just their hometown. For instance, a restaurant owner in Byward Market is not going to clear GNG just because a restaurant critic reviewed his restaurant in the Citizen, a local artist winning a local arts award from the SAW Gallery isn't going to clear NARTIST standards on that basis alone, and on and so forth. Even The New York Times features coverage of local people in local-interest contexts that don't establish permanent national or international notability all by themselves just because their local coverage came from The New York Times instead of the Palookaville Herald, because GNG does take into account the context of what the person is getting covered for and not just the raw number of hits that exist. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's still only one source, I don't see quite enough for GNG or any sport notability as being met. I don't think we have notability, still a !delete for me. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b and @Bearcat, there were actually four newspaper sources provided, not just one. Remember that a person does not need to be the sole subject (or even a primary subject) of a work for it to satisfy WP:GNG. I also disagree that "local" coverage is any less legitimate than national coverage in these papers, because their audience is the same, i.e. all Times subscribers will read it even if the subject is a New Yorker. For your specific examples (Byward Market restaurant owner, SAW Gallery award winner) – do you have specific examples of these types of subjects having articles deleted by community consensus? --Habst (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of the geographic range of a newspaper's readership, it's a question of the context in which the coverage is being given. There have been literally thousands of articles taken to AFD and deleted on the grounds that having a couple of hits of local coverage was not in and of itself enough to overcome the person's lack of a nationalized or internationalized notability claim — high school athletes (e.g. Marquis Fleming), local artists (Laura BenAmots), mayors (Cathy Heron) or municipal councillors (Corky Boozé) or unelected candidates for office (Tiffany Ford), people whose sole claim of notability was winning a minor award of exclusively local significance (Bob Frantz), restaurateurs (Emilio Vitolo) and on and so forth.
Again, I didn't say that local coverage is entirely inadmissible for use — but having a couple of hits of local coverage isn't enough all by itself to overcome not passing WP:NSPORT. And I already addressed above why the St. Catharines Standard (a short blurb) and Harbour City Star (a fashion advertorial in which he's present as a model and not as the subject of discussion) aren't helping. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat, thanks, I am interested in seeing at least one of the thousands of examples. Of the ones you linked,
Based on this, it seems like it is very rare, if it has ever happened, that an article with as much coverage provided here has ever been deleted. I have an open mind, but I haven't been able to find any examples. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the number of links that are or aren't listed in the AFD discussion that matters, it's the number of sources that were or weren't present in the article that matters. They're all articles that cited a handful of local-interest coverage, which was deemed not sufficient in and of itself to exempt them from having to clear the defined SNGs for their occupations just because the articles had a bit of local-interest coverage in them. The rules for notability of people always work the same way no matter what occupation they were in: either they have an "inherent" notability claim that meets a defined notability criterion for their occupation, or they have a depth and range and volume of coverage that marks them out as a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm among all the other people in the same occupation who have failed to meet the "inherent" notability criteria. Local politicians do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; local restaurateurs do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; athletes who haven't otherwise passed NSPORTS do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; and that always works the same way across all occupations. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat, I understand the distinction you are making, but it is one without a difference with respect to this discussion, because if we don't have the links to the actual sources, then we can't say that those articles were more well-sourced than this one.
> Local politicians do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; local restaurateurs do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage; athletes who haven't otherwise passed NSPORTS do not get articles just because they have a couple of hits of local coverage
^ The above is what I'm looking for even one example of. All of the above AfDs linked have less available sources than this article, regardless of profession, so I don't think they are analogous. Until I find any evidence otherwise, I would have to disagree with the quoted text. --Habst (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Above !vote comes from an editor indefinitely blocked for AFD disruption. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Albanians killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]

List of Albanians killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine (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 NLIST. Two item list, topic has not been discussed as a group by reliable sources. Neither of the two items is notable, article serves no purpose per CLN.  // Timothy :: talk  14:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content should be moved to Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War if notable, the article could be made a redirect to there if not notable. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eat This Much[edit]

Eat This Much (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:PRODUCT at the moment, unfortunately. The CNN article seems borderline, but I could not find anything else meeting even that standard. Broader topic of "meal planning service" might satisfy NLIST though, in which case it may be possible to mention and redirect it there in the future. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Washington Post, CNN, and Lifehacker sources should lift this over the bar for GNG and NCORP (which applies here; it seems like the product is synonymous with the company). Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it, Lifehacker was not considered reliable back when it was owned by Gawker, which it was back in 2013, which is what the review is dated as, Dclemens1971. It has changed ownership twice since then though, so it might be worth bumping it up to RSN for future articles. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad on Lifehacker. And on second look, the CNN source is from "CNN Underscored," which says: "Content is created by CNN Underscored’s team of editors who work independently from the CNN newsroom." No RSN discussions but it does appear to be a promotional platform of questionable independence and reliability. That leaves just WaPo, which is not "multiple," so I'll switch my !vote to delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A meal planning app does meet WP:WEB (apps and technology). Following the sources which is applicable to GNG, I have no doubt that there WP:NEXIST and is WP:SUSTAINED too. Having this clearly is a strong move to WP:NCORP. If the CNN were there and it's reliable, WP:N & WP:RS. It does need sourcing. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean by citing WP:NEXIST, SafariScribe are you implying I should have looked some specific places for my BEFORE that I may have missed? The Yahoo Finance article is from Market Wired, it's a press release. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Give me time to analyse the article. I am not at home and will see it off when I reach home. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Not much for notability here. Orientls (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 07:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Rosenfeldt[edit]

Daniel Rosenfeldt (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)

Hi; this is my first time both using Twinkle and participating in the AfD process, so try not to flame me too hard if I make a mistake here. This article has somewhat poor sourcing and I've done a check for his name to try and find anything on him but I've come up short. If anyone can find better sources for this, that would be great, but I'm unable to on my end. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 00:45, 28 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! 04:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - I found a couple of profile articles about him: in the Danish magazine Familie Journalen [19]; and on TV2 (Denmark) [20]. I don't think being a "semifinalist" on the TV Talent show is particularly impressive -- there are 35 semifinalists each year. But the two articles may be enough to pass WP:GNG. — CactusWriter (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These seem fine; it's probably the language barrier that makes finding sources harder. If someone's willing to add them in somehow (I can't at this exact moment) then I'd probably be willing to keep the article. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nothing wrong with submitting an AfD and not being 100% sure (I have withdrawn a good few after somebody came up with dece sources). jp×g🗯️ 01:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Source eval:
Comments Source
Promo interview, fails WP:IS 1. Isbrand, Johan (8 November 2019). "Daniel creates magic in the Circus Building: I have taught myself everything". Familie Journalen.
Brief, but may meet WP:SIGCOV 2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Hansen, Sebastian Myrup (31 March 2018). "Was tapped on the shoulder - two years later he had been all over Denmark". TV 2 (Denmark).
Performance annoucement, fails WP:IS 3. ^ Daniel Rosenfeldt Performing at Skanderborg Festival 2014
Performance annoucement, fails WP:IS 4. ^ "Daniel Rosenfeldt Live at Louisiana". Archived from the original on 2015-05-09. Retrieved 2015-02-24.
Show promo trailer, fails WP:IS 5. ^ Det Stribede Show Trailer
Name mention, fails WP:SIGCOV 6. ^ Hansen, Sebastian Myrup (31 March 2018). "Dansedrenge gik videre til finalen i 'Danmark har talent'". TV2.
Database listing 7. ^ Discogs profile: Daniel Rosenfeldt
Nothing found in BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS. One ref above may meet SIGCOV, but that is not enough to show notability. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  12:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To remind you, sourcing level requirement for BLP is more stringent than GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:48, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash Sirohiya[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a publisher, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for publishers. The main claim of notability stated here is that he exists, which isn't "automatically" notable in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him and his work, but two of the four footnotes here are a directory entry and his company's own contact information on its own self-published website, neither of which are support for notability -- and the other two are both dead links whose former content is unverifiable for the purposes of figuring out whether they supported notability or not, and even those were just jengastacked onto a statement of his existence rather than being used to actually expand the article with content.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to say more than "he exists", or having to cite more and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Nepal, and India. Bearcat (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 3 of 4 sources are failed links and one is a source with stock value and this is not enough to pass general notability guidelines. Simple search did show couple of sources but they are about questions on his "two citizenship certificates", a "press statement made in response to the allegations made by Rastriya Swatantra Party President Rabi Lamichhane" and these are local political problems, and these allegations or incidents are not noteworthy. The subject is not well known and materials are not relevant to the person's notability. Fails WP:BIO. RangersRus (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 SAM Air Cessna Grand Caravan crash[edit]

2023 SAM Air Cessna Grand Caravan crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Event doesn't meet the event criteria and the general notability guideline. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to second this, the article is a stub documenting a disaster, i'd agree with deletion of this article in this sense. Lolzer3000 (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Station (Florida)[edit]

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

Cannot locate any in-depth, significant coverage to demonstrate that this nightclub passes WP:GNG. Some passing mentions, but that's all I can locate. -- Mike 🗩 19:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP it's a good article. Evangp (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Evangp (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC) Note to closing admin Richard3120 is a person that wants to delete this article. Evangp (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC) It's necessary to mark who created the article in these discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any policy-based arguments for keeping? 'It's a good article' is a textbook example of an argument to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:LIKE). -- Mike 🗩 17:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no, that is plenty sufficient as a basis to keep this article. Evangp (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP it's a good article. Evangp (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Duplicate vote stricken. -- Mike 🗩 20:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. The only thing that can be verfied is that this was a venue in Fern Park, Florida – everything else is original research by the article creator. Setlist.fm fails WP:USERG and is not a reliable source, and for some reason a picture of a T-shirt with the venue's logo is considered evidence of notability. That leaves two very brief passing mentions in the local newspaper, which tell you nothing about the venue. Richard3120 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly not notable. And not a good article either.TheLongTone (talk) 13:40, 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 speedy delete‎. CSD G3 Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

São José Incident of 1674[edit]

São José Incident of 1674 (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)

AI hallucination. WP:BEFORE check brings up no sources, and the only source in the article does not mention this incident at all. It instead briefly talks about an unnamed ship being seized in the north of Africa and their passengers being sold as slaves, which bears no resemblance to this article's subject. – Hilst [talk] 12:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Africa, and Portugal. – Hilst [talk] 12:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G3 as a hoax and sanction the creator. Mccapra (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that the user has created a number of similarly-sourced articles which should be investigated as well. See here for the list. Greenman (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under criterion G3. Blatant hoax. The page creator has created numerous pages with a similar style using the same source and page without adding any other sources.[1] Every article feels written using an LLM. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Salgado, Augusto Alves (2022). Viagens e Operações Navais (1668-1823) (PDF) (in Portuguese). Lisbon: Academia de Marinha. p. 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 ‎ closed as creator moved the page back to draftspace themselves a few minutes after this was opened. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godswill Obinna Ejianya[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a businessperson, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for businesspeople.
As always, businesspeople are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but of the six footnotes here, two of them (actually one, reduplicated as two distinct footnotes for no obvious reason) are just "covering" him in the context of turning 50, which is not a notability claim in and of itself, and the other four are all covering him in the context of receiving a local "man of the year" award that isn't highly prominent enough to be a notability-making award. And even more interestingly, those four sources are all virtually identical in wording despite seemingly coming from four different media outlets, meaning that it's really either a wire service article or a self-published press release from the subject. But four media outlets reprinting the same article adds up to one GNG point, not four — we're counting the number of distinct articles, not the number of newspapers that reprint the same article — which means he hasn't actually been shown to pass GNG.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Education and Research Opportunities in the UK[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Higher Education and Research Opportunities in the UK (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)

Defunct goverment website without any claim to notability. previous AfD was "no consensus" but keep arguments didn't seem to go past USEFUL (even then I can't tell if they were saying that the article is useful or the website itself) and the article has not had any sources since then.

The generic name makes searching difficult, but I find it highly unlikely that what was only ever an information portal would have seen significant coverage. I did find all of one entry in a directory which doesn't really establish anything. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unreferenced and nothing to suggests notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:01, 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 redirect‎ to Ekin-Su Cülcüloğlu. Relisting generated no additional discussion, but no one is arguing to keep. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Sanclimenti[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:NACTOR. Not enough coverage to establish the notability. - The9Man (Talk) 11:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ekin-Su Cülcüloğlu - both of his notable TV appearences featured them as a couple. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:24, 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 keep‎. Thank you, GMH Melbourne, for the thorough source analysis. Owen× ☎ 00:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chargrill Charlie's[edit]

Chargrill Charlie's (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:NCOMPANY, lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. Noting the company’s website is a primary source and not independent. Previous PROD removed by anon IP, possible WP:SOCKPUPPET, without addressing the issue of notability. The article’s creator is currently blocked for disrupting other articles. Anon IP is potentially working around current block. Dan arndt (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Australia. Dan arndt (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most of the issues raised in the nom are not themselves justification for deleting the article. The current sourcing is poor but I have been able to find quite a bit of decent coverage such as this from the Financial Review, Mosman Living, Hospitality magazine, and the Sydney Morning Herald. This was from a fairly quick search. AusLondonder (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: The article needs improving but a Google search found a number of sources that can contribute towards establishing notability under WP:NCORP. GMH Melbourne (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Conducted a BEFORE and found some useful sources. X (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to PAG Asia Capital. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as what seems to be the case here where most of the references rely entirely on information from the execs or the company. The references included above are thinly disguised promos or regurgitated company announcements or PR - I mean the articles in hospitality magazine (almost entirely consiste of quotes from company exec) and Goodfood (7 sentences, 2 of which are direct quotes) both use the same (PR supplied) pic even though they're written 3 years apart and neither of them come anywhere close to meeting ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. None of the references come close and I cannot locate anything on this company that meets GNG/NCORP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talk • contribs) 18:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources presented in this AfD would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://chargrillcharlies.com/about-us No No Yes ✘ No
https://www.businessnewsaustralia.com/articles/chargrill-charlie-s-acquired-by-owner-of-red-rooster--oporto.html Yes ? Yes ? Unknown
https://www.afr.com/companies/retail/from-one-chicken-shop-to-a-private-equity-buyout-20230509-p5d6vb Yes (not in article) Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.hospitalitymagazine.com.au/achieving-sustainable-growth-slow-steady-expansion/ Yes (not in article) ? Yes ? Unknown
https://mosmanliving.com.au/chargrill-charlies-is-on-the-move/ Yes (not in article) ? Yes ? Unknown
https://www.smh.com.au/goodfood/eating-out/chargrill-charlies-expands-across-sydneys-eastern-suburbs-20200731-h1ppoi.html Yes (not in article) Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/event/free-chicken-chargrill-charlies Yes (not in article) Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/more-chicks-for-justin-bieber-in-sydney-and-this-time-hes-eating-em/news-story/a00718e1e33d00d58b7895bbe6415594 Yes (not in article) Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/dataroom/craveable-brands-sale-cooking-after-pag-buys-chargrill-charlies/news-story/cb9cb29ab2eec4c7561e91d9ad491440 Yes (not in article) Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/push-to-get-chargrill-charlies-infamous-black-vip-card-extended-to-punters-not-just-vip/news-story/9bf04192df1beaa3e1371671c73f14d2 Yes (not in article) Yes Yes ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An Ordinary Case[edit]

An Ordinary Case (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)

Disputed Draftification, suffering from WP:TOOSOON, and probably WP:NFILM. Draftify 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:15, 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 keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yonatan Steinberg[edit]

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

This appears to be a WP:BLP1E instance. There appears to little to no meaningful coverage of this individual as a subject before or after the one event involved, and all of the coverage on the en-wiki page is essentially obituary material and coverage. Based on this material as it is, as an encyclopedic entry the page devolves more towards WP:RESUME or WP:NOTMEMORIAL than anything else, with the material also largely coming from government and military obituaries, not independent RS. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:delete: this is one of about a dozen articles that seem to be violating WP:NOTMEMORIAL and linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_7. i've nominated those that i can, but many of them are additionally marked extended protected, which seems like an abuse of the designation in an effort to protect the pages from (rightful) editing and deletion. 814jjs (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC) not EC FortunateSons (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last comment may not have been encyclopedic, but I will reply anyway. These other articles may or may not be notable, but they should be considered on their own merits. If they are at the wrong protection level then I suggest raising this at WP:RPP. PatGallacher (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NOTMEMORIAL says "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet" [[{WP:GNG]]. This does not apply here. There are multiple secondary independent RS (Walla, Times of Israel) that provide coverage of the subject. Longhornsg (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither of the keep !votes really address the BLP1E argument advanced by the nominator. Relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Sadly October 7 made many people and events notable. What happened that day is already being denied. Don't whitewash the events of that day. Wikipedia needs to reflect what happened, by whom, to whom. Future generations need to be aware of the atrocities. Never forget. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of WP:BLP1E he was notable before October 7, but the impetus to create the article only happened because of the events of that day. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination is based in error as Steinberg received coverage also during his life.[24][25] While BLP1E and NOTMEMORIAL are important policies, neither one applies here. For deletion that is. gidonb (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the comments above, and WP:SUSTAINED. I added a source from a few months later about his weapon being found, which demonstrates that his memory is still persistent in people's minds. Although maybe not the best comparison, Shireen Abu Akleh is another victim of the conflict who sadly was only recognised for her life's achievements immediately after her death, which is when her article was first created. Havradim leaf a message 12:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY and ongoing legacy. Whatever faults this article had at its creation no longer apply. Bearian (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iftikhar A. Ayaz[edit]

Iftikhar A. Ayaz (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:BASIC and WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." No secondary sources at all. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. @AusLondonder: Have added reliable secondary sources to the article now. Request withdrawal of AfD nomination. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the sources you have added, I'm not sure a single one is actually significant coverage of him as an individual. One source is the Court Circular column in the Daily Telegraph which reports he awarded an Tuvalu Order of Merit to Prince William. Another article is about persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan which name-checks him. I'm not seeing this as meeting WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Iftikhar Ayaz easily satisfies criteria #1 of WP:ANYBIO, having received honours from Queen Elizabeth II as both a Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE) and an Officer of the British Empire (OBE). On top of this, Ayaz satisfies WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, including this 2016 feature article published by AllAfrica.com, "Tanzanian Bestowed With Honours by Queen Elizabeth", which covers his entire life in considerable detail, from his early life and emigration from India to Tanzania; to his education in Tanzania and teacher training in Kenya; to his early career as a government education officer in Tanzania; his graduate studies in Britain; his return to Tanzania to found the Tanzanian Commonwealth Society; and his activism as a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. (Please log in to Wikipedia Library to read the full article on ProQuest.) The 2015 article in Rabwah Times, "Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad AYAZ awarded Knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II" covers additional detail about his work with the United Nations. Of course, in addition to all of this, as Honorary Consul for Tuvalu to the United Kingdom, he is frequently quoted on issues including climate change (such as in this 2007 article in Herald on Sunday in New Zealand "BRITAIN Plea to stop atolls sinking into Pacific", plus many others now cited in the article including the brief quotes in The Daily Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal Online. This article was in terrible shape when it was first nominated for deletion, but has been improved considerably (with room for further improvement and expansion), and overall it's quite a remarkable story of a life of a notable living person. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - now adequately sourced for both GNG and ANYBIO1. Ingratis (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. KBE is not clearly sufficient for ANYBIO1, and regardless the subject should still have received multiple pieces of IRS SIGCOV per N. I'm not totally convinced that the brief announcement in Rabwah is sufficient to meet the "multiple" aspect here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, it easily meets WP:BASIC, ::If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above discussion. KBE is an indication, but not per se evidence, of notability. In any case, this meets SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. While the !vote count is close, the NACTOR argument is undermined by the assertions that the subject's purportedly-notable roles have not been verified, an assertion which has not been contested and which is reinforced by later delete !votes. signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erum Akhtar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Erum Akhtar (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 does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. Furthermore, majority of cited sources fails WP:RS. No evidence indicating significant involvement in notable films, TV dramas, etc. being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Previously deleted as per AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erum Akhtar —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "معروف اداکارہ ارم اختر کی بیٹے کیساتھ تصاویر وائرل". Jang News.
Fyi, the comment above was made by the creator of the BLP. The reference they provided to establish WP:N is merely a sensational news story. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems to meet WP:NACTOR with various significant roles in notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But I was unable to verify if she had significant roles. As I said in my nom, merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one inherent notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR clearly. TheChronikler7 (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The creator of this BLP has peculiar editing history. I've raised concerns about it on WP:ANI. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She has appeared in numerous notable dramas. I remember her in leading PTV dramas roles. She was a model as well.(2400:ADCC:160:1F00:C166:DEA8:28EC:A094 (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    Not enough! you've to provide references to support claims made about her significant roles —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep- meets WP:NACTOR, rationale provided for deletion is weak.182.182.97.3 (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

IP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further review of the sources, and to allow for further discussion within this debate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. nothing found in article or BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS. Article has a lot of refspam, but none or it meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Keep votes provide no sources other than a promotion photo spread. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  13:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources provided to show notability, no reason to keep the article. Niafied (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Babcock–Macomb House. BusterD (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Cape Verde, Washington, D.C.[edit]

Embassy of Cape Verde, Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources and no in-depth coverage available. AusLondonder (talk) 06:58, 21 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! 05:50, 28 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! 06:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:01, 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 redirect‎ to The Jets (Minnesota band). BusterD (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haini Wolfgramm[edit]

Haini Wolfgramm (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)

Member of a notable band, but per WP:MUSICBIO, not sufficiently notable independent of the band for a separate article. In a WP:BEFORE search, I can only find passing mentions of him in articles about the band. The Grammy nomination was for the band. He and his large family were interviewed on a national TV programme in 1994, and that interview was covered by some other media, but that would appear to be WP:BLP1E, and doesn't quite get him over the line for WP:MUSICBIO. A redirect to the band article could be an alternative to deletion, but I'm bringing it here first for discussion. Wikishovel (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend doing the same for Eugene Wolfgramm and Elizabeth Wolfgramm, for the exact same reasons. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:43, 23 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! 05:50, 28 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! 06:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:01, 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 23:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohanjit[edit]

Mohanjit (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 seem to have established notability in either English or Punjabi-language media. Remsense诉 10:35, 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. Complex/Rational 19:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Office[edit]

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

This is a borderline WP:A1 case: I am not sure whether the article is talking about one thing (are the offices organs, buildings, programs? It seems to state all three). Please, someone tell me if UNO are an identifiable thing that exist. Remsense诉 10:26, 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. Complex/Rational 19:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. K. Infradream Limited[edit]

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

Formerly soft deleted per a rationale by User:TimothyBlue which I repeat verbatim:

Fails GNG and NCORP. Nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found routine mill news articles, mentions, nothing showing this meets NCORP, or SIGCOV meeting GNG. Remsense诉 09:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please educate me about GNG and NCORP. Here i am only trying to cover details about a public company with available sources. GrooveGalaxy (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to read WP:GNG (our general notability guideline), and WP:NCORP (the extended notability guidelines regarding corporations). Long story short, the subject does not appear to have substantial mention in reliable sources. Remsense诉 07:34, 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 Xiao-i. ✗plicit 23:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Yuan Hui[edit]

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

sources only or mainly about the company; not enough right now both reliable references and person's notability 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a very interesting figure to me as creator of Xiao-i robot and "China's ChatGPT". his views on AI have been featured extensively by Chinese media (when he spoke at Boao forum for Asia etc; has been attending this prestige event eight years in a row). believe the article can stand as being about an AI expert from China to diversify the discussion. also to mention the patent litigation with Apple is kinda intriguing as well. XiaoMming (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral mainly per nom. Are Caixin articles worth anything? Remsense诉 10:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom.--Wish for Good (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Cheetah Mobile. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MobPartner[edit]

MobPartner (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)

prnewswire sites, etc. not seeing notability here. may be a good reason to redirect to Cheetah Mobile 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 08:37, 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 keep‎. Satisfies WP:NACADEMIC. (non-admin closure) AviCapt (talk to me!) 14:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guy St. Clair[edit]

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

I have made mistakes with AfD regarding academics before, and I do apologise if I'm wrong for this. After searching Google though, this article is the first thing to come up, and other sources that may be about him (not the Australian one, for which there are a few obituaries) are personal blogs or thing by him. -- NotCharizard 🗨 07:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents Cup broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP: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; one is a dead link and the other two is a YouTube link; neither doing anything to establish notability and the rest is unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:31, 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 Lin Chih-chien. Owen× ☎ 23:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Zhijian's paper plagiarism case[edit]

Lin Zhijian's paper plagiarism case (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've already suggested what could happen here (WP:BLAR) but haven't gotten a bite yet; meanwhile I'm a bit worried about potential BLP issues here. Many of the sources are very low quality, and the article's level of detail seems idiosyncratic, unencyclopedic, and more than a little POV if treatment of plagiarism by other public figures in articles is anything to go by. I feel I have little choice than to bring it to AfD, I'm not even sure what else needs to be said about the plagiarism on Lin's own article. Remsense诉 06:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lin Chih-chien for all the reasons you give. Policies and guidelines may include WP:SUSTAINED and WP:POVFORK. As you say there's not a lot more to be said on Lin's article, although that section of his article could use a bit of editing. Oblivy (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per User:Oblivy. --Wish for Good (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Cleanup is needed (including mispelling of Chih-chien as Zhijian), but there are arguably RS covering this incident, so it seems to pass WP:GNG as a stand-alone topic from the subject's biography. (Most sources are in Chinese, unfortunately, but for example Taipei Times covered this in multiple dedicated articles: [26], [27], [28] - note are cited, in our article which unfortunately relies solely on Chinese sources, likely due to being a translation from Chinese Wikipedia). We have many similar articles, see Category:Plagiarism controversies. What we need is a review of sources by someone familiar with Chinese (Taiwanese) outlets, in terms of which are reliable. PS. The incident is mentioned in at least one academic, English article: Liao, D. C. (2023). " Party Turnover" on the Move? Assessing and Forecasting the Dynamics of Taiwan's Politics after the 2022 Local Elections. American Journal of Chinese Studies, 30(1). (I can't link it due to EBSCO being link unfriendly and paywalled, but it comes up in Google Scholar query here. --Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 04:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't really disputed that the subject passes WP:GNG, but could you articulate why the subject should have its own article and isn't best treated in a section of Lin Chih-chien per WP:PAGEDECIDE? Notability is not the only criterion for whether a page should exist. Remsense诉 07:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Page size and WP:DUE (particularly in BLP context) are all relevant considerations. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a tad troubling if the best solution is to have a very underdeveloped base BLP and a very well-developed article about an exclusively negative aspect of that BLP. I do not think this is in keeping with the spirit of NPOV if we let the abstraction of a separation in pages result in the total content of material covering a BLP be totally lopsided like this. See the examples at WP:SPINOFF. Remsense诉 06:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree with @Remsense except I don't agree it's a particularly "well-developed article", just a long one. I think any merge would have to cut it down quite a bit. Lin's article is relatively short at about 13K and this one is about 50K. Even if all of the text was ported over (something I'd 100% oppose for WP:DUE reasons) it still wouldn't be beyond page size guidelines.
    Note that the plagiarism article is entirely about Lin, not about some larger issue of which this incident was emblematic. There's a sentence fragment about strengthened anti-plagiarism measures at the school, and a weak attempt to blame the DPP's overall showing on him. The latter is only supported by a source that regurgitates a press conference in which he apologized. Nothing is gained by separating the two. Oblivy (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge due to NPOV concerns and because the article doesn't cover anything that could not be discussed in the main article on the subject. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to KCHF. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KYNM-CD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This article needs reducing, not deleting. Searched the station, and was able to pick up a source from the LPTV Report, and even then, the article seems to have enough to justify saving it. --Danubeball (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG and I did not find any significant coverage on the article or online. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect This station started as a translator for, and is still related in ownership to, KCHF. The only independent SIGCOV, and probably the only time it aired any locally originating programming, come from the period in the early 2000s when it aired Christian music videos as YTV. I have two feature articles in the Albuquerque Journal from that period. I cannot shake the feeling that the YTV period alone is insufficient. This thing was mostly a translator and/or diginet coatrack. [29] and [30] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Sammi Brie makes a good case for redirecting as an AtD.  // Timothy :: talk  12:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to KCHF: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 02:09, 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! 05:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hovhannes Mkrtchyan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Ineligible for PROD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Armenia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Single EL source in article is not an independent source addressing the subject directly and indepth, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  23:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 05:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

England women's cricket team in Ireland in 2024[edit]

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

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

Source eval:

Comments Source
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 1. "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 2. ^ "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi in September". CricTracker. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 3. ^ "Action-Packed Summer for Ireland Women, Sri Lanka and England Tours Await". Female Cricket. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 4. ^ "T20 World Cup in focus as Ireland outline busy summer schedule". International Cricket Council. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 5. ^ "Fixtures released for 2024". Cricket Ireland. Retrieved 13 May 2024.

Draft has been disputed. It is unlikely this match will generate WP:SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  04:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, Ireland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draftspace it's likely that when the event happens, it will gain coverage (as most England women's cricket internationals do). But too soon for a mainspace article, as it's 4 months until the event, and so 3+ months until coverage will likely start generating for this. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Per Joseph2302s comments. WP:TOOSOON currently. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 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! 05:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General (film)[edit]

General (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)

Can't seem to find any credible sources about it. It looks like the person who created the article only used the IMDB as a reference. Okmrman (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the current state of the page, and with all due respect to its creator, a speedy deletion should be considered. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(But apparently CSD was declined in the past). @Dr. Blofeld:, hello, do you happen to remember anything else about that film (director, original title, cast)? I could try to help and improve it but I need more than just the country, year and this very generic title. Thanks. (even the original IMDb link is not giving any info). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, couldn't even see it on German wiki. I've db authored it but if that isn't accepted Speedy delete. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:30, 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 03:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Franco (soccer)[edit]

Joe Franco (soccer) (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) 03:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PES PU College, Mandya[edit]

PES PU College, Mandya (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 references do not indicate that the subject passes the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for organizations, and a quick search for sources turned up nothing to disprove that. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:45, 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 03:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamath Shoffner[edit]

Jamath Shoffner (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) 03:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPM Govt High School, Adavimallanakeri[edit]

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

This is a contested draftification. The references do not indicate that the subject passes the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for organizations, and a quick search for sources turned up nothing to disprove that. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Karnataka. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: None of the sources meet WP:SIGCOV, and the single sentence of article barely makes grammatical sense. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources found (outside the ones provided by the article). No prejudice towards a redirect to Advimallanakeri as well. Sohom (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reliable sources have been found to establish the notability of this government school. Generally, there is limited reporting on government schools in India, except in some special cases. Grabup (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Again, this page too has poor sources and per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to A Brighter Beat. Liz Read! Talk! 02:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck It, I Love You (Malcolm Middleton song)[edit]

Fuck It, I Love You (Malcolm Middleton 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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC; lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, and has been tagged for notability for over a decade. BilledMammal (talk) 03:19, 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! 02:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayeson Pepito[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Filipino men's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 02:30, 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 redirect‎ to Lancey Foux. Liz Read! Talk! 02:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pink II[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NALBUM. Single source in article is to a message forum, nothing found in BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject (the album) directly and indepth by independent reliable sources. Nothing is sourced for a merge, I don't think a redirect is useful or appropriate.  // Timothy :: talk  02:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lancey Foux: Found no coverage myself. Redirecting existing albums/songs to the artist's page is standard AtD. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lancey Foux: Great album but not any reliable coverage unfortunately. मल्ल (talk) 02:17, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella fund[edit]

Umbrella fund (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)

Failing notability that contains a single source only. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:22, 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 no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 08:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Brown (artist)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an artist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for artists or writers. As always, creative professionals are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists -- the notability test doesn't hinge on sourcing their work to itself as proof that it exists, it hinges on sourcing their work to external validatation of its significance, through independent third-party reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in media and/or books.
But this is referenced almost entirely to directly affiliated primary sources -- the self-published websites of galleries that have exhibited her work, "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's associated with, etc. -- and the only footnotes that represent any kind of third-party coverage are a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person and a single article in the local newspaper of her own hometown, which doesn't represent enough coverage to get her over the bar all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: subject of a 16 minute segment on CBC radio, holds a residency, has exhibited in many exhibitions. Plus, this well-referenced article seems to be the work of a new editor participating in an editathon, who submitted their work to AfC and had it approved, and has since created another well-referenced biography of a different artist; to delete this would be a slap in the face for a serious new contributor to the encyclopedia. (I was initially suspicious of COI or paid editing because I noticed that the editor had made 10 varied edits a little while before starting this article, but I note that the artist's name was on the list of "Suggestions for notable artists / writers / curators / contributors, etc. without articles:" at Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism 2024, so I believe this art historian is a genuine enthusiastic new editor in the field of artist biographies.) PamD 11:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Artists do not become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows by sourcing those gallery shows to content self-published by those galleries (as was done here) — artists only become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows if you can source the gallery shows to third-party content about the gallery shows, such as a newspaper or magazine art critic reviewing said show, but not a single gallery show here has cited the correct kind of sourcing to make her notable for that.
And the CBC source is an interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which is a kind of source that we're allowed to use for supplementary verification of stray facts in an article that has already passed WP:GNG on stronger sources but not a kind of source we can use to bring the GNG in and of itself, because it isn't independent of her. And no, articles aren't exempted from having to pass GNG just because they came out of editathons, either: editathons still have to follow the same principles as everybody else, and the articles resulting from them still have to properly source their notability claims. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the CBC radio piece is an interview, surely her selection as the subject of an interview in a series on a major radio station is an indicator of notability? As is her selection for two residencies: the organisations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist, and there are sources from those organisations. PamD 21:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC interview is from one of the CBC's local programs on one of its local stations, not from the national network, so it isn't automatically more special than other interviews just because it came from a CBC station instead of a Corus or Pattison or Rogers station. So it isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source she has.
It isn't enough that the organizations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist — they aren't independent of the residency, so they're still affiliated sources. The source for a residency obviously can't be her own website, but it also can't be the website of the organization that she worked with or for either — it has to be a third party that has no affiliation with either end of that relationship, namely a media outlet writing about the residency as news, because the organization is still affiliated with the statement. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, reluctantly. It seems to me I've previously read something about this artist, and her work has been exhibited in well known galleries. I'm just not finding any additional independent reliable sources beyond the first one in the article. Willing to change my vote if better sourcing is found. Curiocurio (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep per PamD. This was not a person-picked-off-the-street interview. BD2412 T 01:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: borderline but I think tagging the article for relying on primary sources might be sufficient without needing to delete the entry. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If primary sources are virtually all it has, then just tagging it for relying on primary sources isn't sufficient — it's not enough to assume that better sources exist that haven't been shown. Better sources have to be demonstrated to exist, not just speculated about as theoretically possible, in order to tip the balance between an AFD discussion and just being flagged for better sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not speculating, read your discussion above with PamD then made my decision. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG as well as the four criteria set down by WP:NARTIST. The nominator's report is spot on. After discarding the interviews and the primary sources, we're left with a non-existent case for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a directory of artists, nor a collection of indiscriminate information. And the extensive discussion is rather surprising for such an evidently straightforward issue. -The Gnome (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why are you discarding the CBC interview? FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per the CBC feature, combined with the weight of what seem to be adequate sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What adequate sources? I see exactly one. Curiocurio (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With the Guleph Today piece and CBC coverage, there is non-primary coverage. Whether aspects of the biography sourced to primary sources are wholly due as paragraphic body text or could be better rendered as a list of works/residences is a content question at the article level rather than an inclusion/deletion question at the encyclopedia level. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nicely done bio on the notability borderline. Don't we have more serious things to worry about? Carrite (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - most of the sources are primary, and not high-quality at that, as they are very promotional. She has very little reliable third-party coverage. Swordman97 talk to me 03:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A dozen warm-up edits then creation of a detailed article with mostly commercial non-archival references. Article has a cereal-filler claim to notability ("She is primarily known for her sculptural works which incorporate a variety of natural and industrial materials.") This looks like some kind of fan-page or COI. 2600:1700:8650:2C60:89EE:CBB:BDD3:F68E (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in a RS source does not indicate that the coverage contributes evidence of the subject's notability. I agree with other commenters that this falls short of WP:Artist, her importance in Maple Ridge, British Columbia notwithstanding. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - All these guidelines that allow us to say "passed xyz standard", or "fails XYZ standard" is handy to have. But the fact of the matter is, we have articles like this one, where it should be obvious that this is an accomplished artist. Maybe she does/or doesn't exactly fit into the guidelines we so love to haul out for our assessment. Wikipedia has kept stubs and others with far less content and substance than this one. As far as I'm concerned, her article shows her qualifications to be here. We get carried away sometimes on one view or the other. I say she's notable as an artist, and I'm sticking to my perspective on it. — Maile (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll concur with Maile66. I see sufficient anchoring sourcing (Guleph Today and CBC) and plenty of less independent stuff (which may be used to detail the subject once NOTE is met, which I now assert). Given the usual dearth of direct detailing of visual artists in media, this sourcing is pretty good. BusterD (talk) 14:32, 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 redirect‎ to Peruvian rock. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Los Zodiac[edit]

Los Zodiac (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 was hard to assess, especially as there are varying spellings used. I couldn't find enough to show it meets WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Survived 2005 AfD ([[45]], but standards very different then. Boleyn (talk) 10:39, 21 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! 05:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • From this it seems like there is some level of coverage in 2018's Demoler. El rock en el Perú 1965-1975 by Carlos Torres Rotondo
  • There may be some leads from this: "Very little has been written about the History of Rock in our environment. Only sketches (as some newspapers usually publish) and some studies such as the one done by Jose Miguel Gonzalo Garcia, entitled Development of Youth Music in Peru, give us a brief idea of this whole matter. But the closest thing to a treatise on the so-called underground current or alternative music comes from the university works of which I mention (but always from a giraffe perspective, based more on journalistic data or conversations with subways, than on personal experiences), the job that my friend Miguel Lescano did at the beginning of the 90s, or the Underground Rock -10 Years of Wild Operas by Alvaro Olano Dextre. All of them are the first formal attempts to capture a history of underground rock. Someone will try to object to me by saying, what about Pedro Cornejo's book? I'm sorry to contradict you little brother, but the Game without Borders - Approaches to Contemporary Music that Pedro published in 1994 is not considered, not even by Pedro Cornejo himself, a total work, at least it is not what many (like me) expected from Pedro Cornejo Guinassi, graduate in Philosophy, professor at La Católica, participant in the first years of underground rock, editor and collaborator of alternative publications and other publications."
  • es-wiki does not have an article for them, and nor are they actually covered at es:Rock_del_Perú or es:Historia_del_rock_en_el_Perú
  • They are not the Los Zodiacs from Getxo in Spain who had a song in a Pepsi ad (see this from El Correo)
I can't see what's in Torres, etc, but there's otherwise a dearth of reliable sourcing for the band other than being one of a number of early 60s Peruvian rock bands. Unless adequate info is discovered in Torres or other RS, redirect with retention of history and categories seems the sensible option. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, is there more support for a Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep or redirect to Peruvian rock. There is a good case for notability made based on Ferreira, Cesar; Dargent-Chamot, Eduardo (2002). Culture and Customs of Peru. ABC-CLIO. p. 126. ISBN 9780313089473. which, while brief coverage, indicates they were a significant band in Peru during the early years of rock'n roll in that country. I would image most of the sources for this band would be offline and in foreign languages (Spanish, Quechua, etc.) given the age and the locale. I'd be fine with redirecting with no prejudice against recreation if someone is able to dig up some better sourcing with more in-depth coverage.4meter4 (talk) 22:29, 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Premier League overseas broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per sources found by Claudio Fernag. Esolo5002 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG is well passed here and the sourcing for this list is certainly not in question, while the article is monitored closely to revert any errors or vandalism near immediately. We disqualify outright press releases, but certainly not reliable news sources, and the nominator is advised that they are perfectly acceptable to source a broadcast partner. Nate • (chatter) 18:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are as of now, at least 84 different sources in the article to back up its notability efforts or quota. BornonJune8 (talk) 9:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, but all but 6 are for articles, the rest are excuses to claim WP:RS. This argument is so 2007. Try harder next time. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yes there are 84 sources, but not many are actually WP:SIGCOV of Premier League broadcasters, they're just saying "in country X, company Y have a contract for Z years and W money". I don't see any good quality sources e.g. linking overseas broadcasters together in one source (apart from [50], which is one source), which is a suggestion at WP:LISTN for when a list might be notable. This just read like a TV directory. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is the one on broadcasting rights that has the best and most sources, I see no reason to delete it, it is completely encyclopedic.
PIKACHUNESS (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like WP:ILIKEIT. An analysis of the sources would help. Conyo14 (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is very valuable resource about the topic. Regpath (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another WP:ILIKEIT, please provide a policy-based rationale for keeping. Conyo14 (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As usual, WP:ITSUSEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is no longer just an article about a list of broadcasters as it was in the beginning, now a context has been added that gives it notability and verifiable and reliable sources have been added, so the information must be maintained, but maybe in this case what should be done is move this to List of Premier League broadcasters, as it was previously, so that everything is grouped in a single article, both local and international rights.--Edu1388 (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support the merge suggested above over deletion. Conyo14 (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here, one editor supporting a Merge but I see no target article mentioned here, just a proposal for a rename. This article has been expanded greatly since its nomination and a review of those newly added sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails NLIST, nothing in article shows this has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. Keep votes above found nothing that meets NLIST and are ILIKEIT votes, and the article does not serve any navigation purpose. If anyone finds independent sources meeting NLIST, ping me.  // Timothy :: talk  13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These sorts of articles are up for deletion because of a misapplication of WP:NOTTVGUIDE. The very first source in the article clearly talks about these as a set. SportingFlyer T·C 16:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The very first source is from the Premier League, aka WP:PRIMARY, so it cannot count. Conyo14 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. here. SportingFlyer T·C 17:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That source is a tv guide... hmm Conyo14 (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not - a TV guide tells you what's on when. That article lists the broadcasters, just as this article does. SportingFlyer T·C 22:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From the source you provided How to watch Premier League in Azerbaijan? TV channel and stream: ITV, Setanta Sports Highlights: Setanta Sports Average Kick Off Time: 18:00 AZT. From WP:NOTTVGUIDE: An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc.. I think the interpretation of this guideline is what we shall disagree on. That's ok. The merge target below I will find acceptable as an WP:ATD. Conyo14 (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I think it is not a bad idea to join this article with List of Premier League broadcasters as proposed, but I do not know what the procedure is, if they will be merged or if this article will simply be deleted and this information will be moved as a section within the other.--Claudio Fernag (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airbiquity[edit]

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

All sources for this company are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, Transportation, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean keep very difficult to find under all the regurgitated press releases but the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has done a couple of more substantial pieces on the company,[1][2] which looks to have been more prominent in the 2000s. (I don't think the articles are still available online – if anyone would like me to email the full text to review, let me know). I'm not yet fully convinced of notability – we would want to see decent coverage from more than one source – but the situation is not quite as bad as it looks. – Teratix ₵ 06:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cook, John (21 October 2005). "Ex-startup Airbiquity experiences a rebirth". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
  2. ^ Cook, John (22 January 2008). "Airbiquity rebounds with funding, deals". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I opened all of the refs, they are routine press releases, 404, tangential and such. Nothing to establish notability. A 1997 startup that had 50-100 employess before being bought up recently and has now disappeared. Desertarun (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you look for sources that weren't in the article? – Teratix ₵ 04:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep the page seems to be notable, and the routine coverage is not so bad, while better sources should be added by the locals or those who know the topic better. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Redirect, perhaps to connected car as an AtD. I did do a reasonable BEFORE, and I don't see anything outside of routine business news, including the sources presented in this process. I agree with the source analysis by Desertarun. I see nothing which directly details why this failed startup is remarkable inside of its field. The rest is just fundraising and rewritten press releases, including links provided in this process. BusterD (talk) 13:51, 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 merge‎ to American occupation of Ramadi. Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Tash Garrison[edit]

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

Cannot find any sources besides the one 2003 report. Given it seems to lack official government recognition, WP:GNG applies over WP:NPLACE and I can find basically nothing about this place. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep but rename. There was a refugee camp there and I believe it was notable per 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and other sources. I think “garrison” is just a mistranslation of “مخيم” and the intended meaning is “refugee camp”. Mccapra (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem here is that, since this place is not government recognized, WP:GNG applies. The first four here are primary sources, 5 is WP:ROUTINE coverage, and 6 about another camp and only mentions this one in passing. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, it would be helpful if the sources mentioned here could find their way into the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect or Merge to American occupation of Ramadi as an AtD. Agree with source analysis by the nominator. The sources applied and raised here verify the subject's existence, but do not support an article on it, none of them meeting IRS, imho. Better to send the redirect to an article which might give the subject needed context. BusterD (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per BusterD. Mccapra (talk) 06:48, 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 no consensus‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Chaplain to the King[edit]

Honorary Chaplain to the King (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 page is fundamentally flawed. The position of Honorary Chaplain to the King is a military appointment, for serving regular and reserve chaplains in the British and some Commonwealth armed forces. However much of the text refers to Chaplains to the King, who are members of the Ecclesiastical Household of the Royal Household, and are civilians, usually senior parish priests. I do not believe that the article can be repaired. As an alternative to deletion it would have to be wholly rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncox001 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC); listed on the log at 21:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The nominator's contention is incorrect - Honorary Chaplain to the King is NOT a military appointment. In recent times a number of HCs have been appointed from the forces but many are also appointed who have no link to the forces. All are absolutely part of the ecclesiastical household. As such, the assertion that the article "cannot be repaired" is flawed. It should be improved, perhaps by starting here (p304) which details the creation of the position in 1881.----Pontificalibus 06:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As lacking significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Also per WP:TNT: if someone believes this topic is notable, create a new article that's not a mess like this and with sufficient sources. AusLondonder (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TNT is not necessary for a small stub such as this, any corrections can be made in situ. Has reliable sources book coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here, the discussion is ongoing and would benefit from editors knowledgeable about this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep An interesting and informative article about a position not necessarily written about often, nor well-known outside the UK. This would be even better with expansion. — Maile (talk) 02:21, 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Fusitua[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per JTtheOG, can't see any thorough coverage of this person. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a young player at the beginning of his career and he is playing regularly for the Blues now. There are already more sources available about this player than used for this stub and it is foreseeable that there will be more written about him in the future. Ruggalicious (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get a review of sources establishing GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akade[edit]

Akade (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 clear notability. Creation tends to indicate an undeclared conflict of interest. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 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 redirect‎ to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States#Consular districts by missions. Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Atlanta[edit]

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Atlanta (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)

Lacking secondary sources specifically about the consulate. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fayse Goh[edit]

Fayse Goh (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 appears to be very promotional. I also searched up the name, and it appears to plagarize his youtube channel's description. Gaismagorm (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Malaysia. Gaismagorm (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Logs: 2024-04 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I find youtube, twitter, instagram then off into the ether... Lack of sourcing, what's given now is primary. Nothing for notability found. Oaktree b (talk) 23:20, 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 Draftified‎ with consent of creator Star Mississippi 02:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bunker (upcoming film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Bunker (upcoming 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)

No evidence found this meets N:FILM with this the only piece newer than what's in the article and not enough to indicate notability for an unreleased film. Star Mississippi 01:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. Star Mississippi 01:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's too soon for the article to be in mainspace, then I vote draftify. The Film Creator (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My only argument for the article to be kept was that these three sources from Screen International, Deadline Hollywood and JoBlo.com were published at different dates and each of them were about different topics and yet all of them are related to this film. IMO, I believe at least three (or four) reliable sources are needed for a film-related article, particularly if the film is upcoming or unreleased, to be eligible for mainspace. The Film Creator (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter two are from 2021 and I can find nothing to indicate this has progressed sufficiently for N:FILM or that it will be released. I have no objection with it being re-draftified if you'd be willing should it close that way. Star Mississippi 02:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Star Mississippi Per WP:NFF, WP:NYF and WP:CRYSTAL, I'm content that the article be moved back to draftspace until new and reliable information about this film is published. The Film Creator (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done so. I suggest waiting for its release, which I note you also suggested at the first deletion discussion for this film. Star Mississippi 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GJ Stoutimore[edit]

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

There is zero evidence of the subject's notability on any standard. Virtually every source is either to the subject's own writing, links to buy the subject's book, or marketing material. (Even apparently reliable sources are not; the Kirkus Reviews source is actually from "Kirkus Indie," a paid placement, and the BookTrib.com reviews are also paid placements on a book marketing platform.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:52, 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 Revo Powertrains. Wrightspeed is a redirect to this article. Liz Read! Talk! 02:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrightspeed X1[edit]

Wrightspeed X1 (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 dates from 2006, a period when one might argue with success that Wikipedia was in a major growth phase, and that poorly sourced articles were acceptable on the basis that they might be improved. This one has been edited periodically, but not improved. It has a single source, and does not pass WP:GNG. It is interesting, but gives undue weight to the vehicle, which is only notable for its power train, not for anything else about it. There is thus no objection to merge and redirect as an outcome to this discussion, with the merge target being the source of the powertrain, or with the manufacturer of the chassis. There appears to be no individual article on the designer himself, or that might be a valid target. I am thus asking for consensus not only on the fate of the article, but on any merge target as well. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Some coverage found, [55] and [56]. Merge to Wrightspeed or the Ariel Atom? I'm not sure. Oaktree b (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b Given that choice, I think it is more relevant to Wrightspeed than the Aerial Atom. However, Wrightspeed ends up at an article of a different name, but mainly about Wrightspeed. I think there needs to be some background work here by someone who can rationalise what is what. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see some support for redirect, but no consensus as to a target. We shouldn't need another full week to settle on a target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Wrightspeed" seems like a good redirect choice. Oaktree b (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Revo Powertrains which is the powertrain company founded by Mr. Wright (under the Wrightspeed name?). Redirect doesn't make sense to me as Revo doesn't include anything about this car. Oblivy (talk) 02:29, 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Onsgard[edit]

Kristen Onsgard (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)

Bridge player. Seems like a total failure of WP:GNG. Specifically, there is not a single independent source in the article, and I was not able to find any either. From WP:GNG: "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". Within bridge, "affiliated with the subject" means bridge federations, leagues, and tournaments - and of course also the subject herself (here, I'm referring to the Amazon page for a book.) Prolonged attempts to explain the creator what a significant and independent source is, have not bore fruit at all; a discussion of this nature might also come up during this discussion. References to a bridge SNG might also come up, which is irrelevant as long as GNG is not met. Geschichte (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - We have already gone through this review process with this user. My account is autopatrolled, new articles I create should not have to go through the review process as I am supposed to be trusted to know what types of articles meet Wikipedia guidelines.

Kristen won a North American Bridge Championship (NABC). These Bridge events are open to players around the world and many fly in, including the world's top professional players, to compete at these 10 day tournaments. Winning an unlimited event at an NABC is very prestigious achievement. I created Kristen's page, and also included a picture.

Geschichte decided to move this new article to Draft space. There was discussion on this user's Talk page about this. I asked for more senior Wikipedia editors to review the submission. They decided that the page was notable, overruled Geschichte, and Star Mississippi moved the article to the main Wikipedia on April 7, asking Geschichte to take it to AfD if there was any issues.

One would have thought the discussion was over, but Geschichte retaliated by adding to Kristen's page on April 11, having just been overruled on that very issue.

Since April 11 the page has been edited by others, including additional information about Kristen and more references added.

I removed the "no significant coverage" banner today. Geschichte then retaliated again by submitting this to AfD.

I have created 7 pages on Bridge players this year. All are similar in style, scope. None of them have been sent to AfD. I have probably created 300+ Wikipedia pages for Bridge players over the last few years.

I don't want to get into a flame war, but "Prolonged attempts to explain the creator what a significant and independent source is, have not bore fruit at all" is not what has happened. Another Wikipedia editor, Star Mississippi overruled Geschichte issues. This is Geschichte second retaliation to being overruled. The first retaliation was adding the banner, the second retaliation was submitting this to AfD almost a month after it was approved.

A general rule of thumb in Bridge is anyone who has won a World event, won a European event, or won a North American Bridge Championship is meets the notability requirements, based on comparisons with other sports.

Kristen meets that criteria.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She more than likely does meet notability criteria, but we need sourcing about this person in order to build the article. What's used now isn't acceptable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it", the article's subject in this case is surely Kristen Onsgard. Someone affiliated with her is surely intended to mean a family member, friend, or someone who is part of the same circle. Surely interpreting it as excluding works produced by a national bridge federation is interpreting it far more broadly than was intended? JH (talk page) 09:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please can someone confirm which source(s) show significant coverage of Onsgard? I have checked each one and can't find any. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as I was pinged. I don't view myself as having overruled Geschichte as that's not really a thing here. I believed the article deserved a chance in mainspace, and I restored it acting as an editor, not as an admin. I have not looked further and likely will not during the run of this discussion so I take no point on this deletion discussion. Geschichte disagreed with my restoration, as is within their right as an established editor, and brought it here for the community to discuss. That's exactly the process that should happen. Nicolas.hammond, being autopatrolled does not mean your articles can't be brought for deletion. I'd venture a guess that every editor who has written more than a handful has had one of the articles they started brought for deletion. It is not personal, although it may feel it. Please look for independent, reliable sources which will help determine whether Onsgard is notable, not any "rule of thumb". Star Mississippi 01:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This needs input from someone who understands who Wikipedia works. The comments above need not be characterized by me as they speak for themselves, with non-existing concepts such as "approval", "overruling", "retaliation" etc. Geschichte (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please avoid interpersonal drama, and focus on substantive arguments relating to notability as determined by our guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Outside of team profiles, there is no coverage for this person. Even what's used now in the article is ranking listings from various bridge federations. We need articles in media of some kind about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I was unable to find any SIGCOV during a search and none has been presented here. I am also not seeing anything wrong with User:Geschichte's process on the matter. When drafting and tagging the page gets rejected without any improvements then the next logical step is to take them to AfD. Alvaldi (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kristen's picture was on the front page of the International Bridge Press Association May 2024 bulletin, https://www.ibpa.com/, for the NABC win. This bulletin is not yet archived so is only accessible to IBPA members, so I can't add to her page. In other words, winning an NABC event is a big deal.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is current no SNG for Bridge. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports). I added a proposal for Bridge in the Talk section. I based the SNG proposal on other non-common sports.

For example, curling, kickboxing, orienteering, triathlon. In all of these the equivalency (winning a major event) merits a Wikipedia page.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

  1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and
  2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

This article has its equivalence to the SNG requirements for other less well known sports. Nicolas.hammond (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: For a sport like curling, it says: "Significant coverage is likely to exist for a curler if they ...". Likely to exist being the keywords, it is then up to us to find that coverage. It might be quite difficult for earlier, non-Western participants, whereas the easiest participants to cover should be current, American or British ones. Geschichte (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GNG coverage is required, and that means multiple sources of IRS SIGCOV must be shown to keep this article. No such sourcing has been found. Also, organizations are inherently invested in promoting their own activities and therefore are clearly not independent of subjects participating in those activities. JoelleJay (talk) 00:34, 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! 19:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12Go[edit]

12Go (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the WP:NCORP/WP:GNG. Sources are based on what they say or adverts. There was this one by The South African but the author is "a junior campaign management who inspires and empowers you to create marketing that your customers will love; igniting real results for your business" so not reliable/independent so I removed it along with blogs and other non-RS (written by contributors and/or sponsored). I was unable to find any reliable sources about the company. S0091 (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ttrweekly.com/site/2024/02/12go-shines-a-spotlight-on-its-sales-stars https://www.traveldailynews.asia/column/interviews/transforming-ground-transportation-a-conversation-with-ron-hoffman-ceo-of-12go/ https://nl.mashable.com/travel/8863/12go-pioneering-multimodal-travel-from-south-east-asia-to-the-world https://lamag.com/contributor-content/empowering-solo-journeys-12gos-guide-to-top-solo-female-travel-destinations-in-asia-for-2024 https://www.freep.com/story/special/contributor-content/2024/04/02/leadership-in-data-driven-travel-insights-deciphering-12gos-top-2024-new-year-destinations-in-asia/73182956007/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/special/contributor-content/2024/01/25/12gos-revealed-insights-reflecting-on-the-top-2024-new-year-destinations-in-asia/72352136007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/special/contributor-content/2023/08/30/redefining-leadership-a-glimpse-into-the-team-and-philosophy-of-12go/70721506007/ https://www.stltoday.com/news/nation-world/streamlining-group-adventures-how-12go-is-transforming-travel-planning-in-asia/article_24825eec-3456-5d22-b87b-b9f0eb401291.html https://www.thesouthafrican.com/business/travel-business/12go-charting-the-course-of-innovative-travel-in-southeast-asia-october-2023/ https://www.ttgasia.com/2022/10/07/airasia-12go-create-all-in-one-transport-booking-solution-for-travellers/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/10/bookaway-books-35m-to-scale-up-its-ground-transportation-booking-platform/ https://newsroom.airasia.com/news/2022/10/3/airasia-super-app-expands-the-booking-capability-to-include-land-and-sea-transportation-modes Stromeee (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stromee, about half of those links will not even open for me. The others are telling me something - that 12GO aspires to be a one stop travel solution and such like, but there is a lot of reporting here and not much analysis. WP:ORGCRIT says:

These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals.

and so per WP:CORPDEPTH:

The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

We need multiple sources of this level. So, which sources do you think meet this level of significant coverage? I am not seeing it - but again, five of those links simply won't open in Europe. If we can focus our attention on the best sources, I can make the effort to access those via VPN. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To @Sirfurboy's point, @Stromeee I suggest following WP:THREE. Also, contributor posts like USA Today are not WP:RS and per WP:TRADES, trade publications generally cannot be used to establish notability. S0091 (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's pretty tough sifting for actual coverage among all the promotion. This 2017 Skift article covers the subject in two short paragraphs, with some original analysis.[57] --Paul_012 (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, all the suggested sources are trade publications (WP:TRADES), sponsored content, or otherwise non-independent coverage. I doubt there's independent coverage outside of trade publications. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:36, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_May_13&oldid=1224991924"