Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 13 May 15 >

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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Martani[edit]

Andrea Martani (edit | talk | history | 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. The closest I found to WP:SIGCOV were a few sentences of coverage interspersed throughout an interview. JTtheOG (talk) 23:54, 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! 23:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Wilschut[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 23:35, 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! 23:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rishtay Biktay Hain[edit]

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

This TV drama clearly fails to meet GNG as I couldn't even find ROTM coverage in RS besides some namechecks coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:32, 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 Web crawler#Open-source crawlers. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norconex Web Crawler[edit]

Norconex Web Crawler (edit | talk | history | 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 a shame, but there doesn't seem to be anything beyond the barest of mentions in independent RS. A redirect to Web crawler#Open-source crawlers would probably be the best option. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5 references listed which from independent sources.
Please also take a look at Mentions in Academic Research portion where academic research with mentions of the Crawler are listed. These are independent sources as well. OhTwadi (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of which having barely significant coverage... TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 02:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I see other open source crawlers which have much less in terms of content and/or references and yet are considered fine. One example: MnoGoSearch OhTwadi (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I could see, that article was considered "no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination". Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:48, 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! 23:22, 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! 02:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Buckley[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were transactional announcements (1, 2) with a combined five-ish sentences of independent coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided: Sufficient room for expansion, but not enough coverage in current state. Mn1548 (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I was able to find this source, which I think is detailed enough be considered non-trivial, but it's a local media article, so it's pretty borderline. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Transactional announcements such as signings and trades are not considered in-depth sourcing, especially when most of it is in quotes. JTtheOG (talk) 18:15, 2 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) 18:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I lean to delete as not quite meeting notability guidelines but will support the consensus of the group of editors. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Bartos[edit]

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

Only named role is a minor part in a musical which never reached broadway due to COVID. Only SigCov is a single piece interview in local news from 2019. Article created with COI.

No hard feelings to the author who will probably read this, I think they made a good faith to write an article with COI while following Wikipedia's policy, and the quality of the prose and formatting is nice. I hope they consider contributing to other, more notable topics that they do not have a conflict of interest with. BrigadierG (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BrigadierG Appreciate the feedback on drafting. I have added in news sources as there is SigCov in multiple articles from NY Times, local newspaper, and national magazines. Also added context of Max as a producer and director, and more from times during COVID. His role as Darren was a principal role along with the roles of Brendan, Raphina, and Conor. Disclosed COI because it is the right thing to do, but do not believe this merits deletion since the materials are all sourced and accurately cited and quoted. Also added reference to his work with Tali Golergant as she featured on one of the songs on his album and she is now a ESC finalist. I also appreciate the suggestion to edit other articles and will definitely start to do that. I respectfully ask that the page mark for deletion be removed. Lawhawk 13 (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)@Lawhawk 13[reply]
  • Delete. I had to reorganize this article to figure out what was going on here. This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. This young actor appeared in a supporting role in an off-Broadway show that was Broadway-bound but never got to Broadway because of the COVID-19 pandemic. He has not had any significant further theatrical roles. He has produced and directed a couple of amateur shows. He had previously had bit parts in several films in his teens, and a leading role in a YouTube short film, playing Young Shane Dawson, when he was 11. He has released two non-notable albums of folk music and played in bands. Does not pass NACTOR, and most of the refs in the article (certainly the ones in national press) are about the show, not the actor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per the above, doesn't meet NACTOR yet. Niafied (talk) 04:46, 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 Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giuliano Avaca[edit]

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

A case of WP:TOOSOON. All the sources in the article are primary and I am unable to find enough independent coverage in my searches to meet WP:GNG. I came across a couple transactional announcements 1, 2, 3, but no sustained or in-depth coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 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! 21:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muni Mohjit Vijayji[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Muni Mohjit Vijayji (edit | talk | history | 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 article about a niche religious figure. Only one in-depth reference – a 2003 press article in the Gujarati language (a copyvio scan is on Commons); all the remaining references are at best passing mentions of the subject. The disciples / religious community he left behind doesn't appear too numerous or active, either, at least judging from its Facebook page. All in all, this looks like one of a myriad of gurus found across India at any time who preach to their small following; and not a person with an encyclopaedic notability. — kashmīrī TALK 20:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and India. — kashmīrī TALK 20:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Poor and unreliable sources. One or two reliable source do not have coverage to warrant notability. Sources that cover younger generation or an IITian who gave up their career for Jain vow of renunciation does not help either. The religious figure is minor to unknown even in media and simple search on Google. RangersRus (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, Soft Deletion is not an option here due to a previous AFD on this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. The sourcing is all over the place - some good, some terrible. It's almost enough for WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Based on my checking, I found nothing but unreliable sources and some reliable ones that lack the in-depth coverage needed to establish notability. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 16:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of recurring Entourage characters[edit]

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

Adding together many non-notable topics still gives you a non-notable topic. The individual character articles like Ari Gold (Entourage) or Vincent Chase might reach the threshold of significant coverage required by WP:NOTABILITY. But this miscellaneous list does not. Jontesta (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails NLIST, nothing found showing this has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. fancrufty article, does not serve a nav purpose, fails CLN. WP:CSC #2 does not say that a stand alone list is always notable or appropriate.  // Timothy :: talk 
  • Delete: per TimothyBlue. Couldn't find significant coverage per WP:BEFORE. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per TimothyBlue too. This list is fine on Fandom but I cannot see how it deserve a spot on Wikipedia, they are recurring characters after all. WP:ATD will be to prune it down and rename it as List of Entourage characters. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple things. First, "adding together many non-notable topics" is one of three standard ways to make a list. Second, what's really being asked is whether, in an ideal version of a very long article on Entourage, there would be a listing of recurring characters. If so, using primary sources for basic information isn't a problem and spinning that list out to its own page isn't a problem. Personally, I'm skeptical that such a list would be merited, so probably err on the side of weak delete, but I'm not especially familiar with the show or the sourcing around it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bee Ridge, Indiana[edit]

Bee Ridge, 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)

This history of the county, from 1909, describes Bee Ridge as "naming a locality, a church and a school." It then goes on at some length concerning the founding of the church, leaving the other two points unaddressed except for the origin of the place's name. I can verify the school, which the topos show as sitting in isolation about 1/3 mile away from the spot they label. But I can find no sign that there was ever a town here, and the history treats it as an area rather than as a specific settlement. I don't think it provides enough info for an article on that area. Mangoe (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dick Johnson Township, Clay County, Indiana. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 23:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Mangoe (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (don't redirect): No information available, so a redirect accomplishes nothing other than stating which township this place was in. Unlikely search term, also. Fails WP:GEOLAND if there are no sources other than GNIS and census. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is is mentioned in "From Needmore to Prosperity : Hoosier place names in folklore and history[1]". As one of the oldest settlements in the county. Also listed as a town serviced by Taxi, but alot things on this list seem suspect so... [2]. Thoughts?James.folsom (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that Buchanan corner is not mentioned on that taxi list. James.folsom (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article now refers to Bee Ridge as a locality. There is probably also a ridge nearby named Bee Ridge. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear more opinion about a possible Redirct
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete other than the few things I found, there is nothing to be found. Earliest settlement in the county as claimed could just be a group of farmers, and there is no proof positive of any of the claimed details about the place.James.folsom (talk) 23:02, 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 Royal Engineers. Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

29 Armoured Engineer Squadron[edit]

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

In my opinion, the article is not notable. Similiar units almost certainly would not have an article. Only one reference is listed and it is not independent of the topic of the article.. PercyPigUK (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was going to vote to redirect this to the parent unit, but I'm really not sure what that unit actually is. It most recently seems to have been part of 35 Engineer Regiment but our article doesn't record that as currently being the case. Anyone know what the most suitable redirect is? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 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! 23:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Royal Engineers might be the most suitable option. PercyPigUK (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, two suggested redirect target articles, are either appropriate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Karlsson (musicologist)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCREATIVE. Clearfrienda 💬 22:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Bands and musicians, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Probably meets WP:AUTHOR, I easily found several reviews of his 2013 book. Quickly added them, though several are paywalled. Geschichte (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd like to see more than one book for WP:AUTHOR but Royal Swedish Academy of Music might be a pass of WP:PROF#C3. It depends on whether it is for music scholarship (likely in his case) or performance (also prestigious but not really academic notability). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- my sense is that the membership in Royal Swedish Academy of Music would be a WP:PROF#C3 qualification (membership in a very rigorously chosen and prestigious academic society). There are four academics (or five if the society director is included) in the list of 177 current members, among 800ish since the founding in the 1770s, suggesting that at least one society considers him among the top handful of music academics in Sweden. I don't personally know his work, but I haven't really studied Swedish music history, which is his specialty. But he is the author of the plurality(? majority?) of the articles on Swedish music in the New Grove 2001 encyclopedia, meaning he had enough reputation by then to be a significant authority. I think that to the extent that the Academy does appoint researchers as members, it is in that capacity an academic institution; the American Academy of Arts and Sciences appoints some non-academic musicians and screen actors as well, but its appointments of academics are considered as WP:PROF#C3. (I was convinced of a Keep before I looked at WP's coverage of Swedish academics in music. A delete here would be 20% of the living people in the category). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(And thanks for the Ping David Eppstein!) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it certainly seems that NACADEMIC is met. Niafied (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Hoberman[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Multiple WP:BLP issues with the page, as well as sourcing issues and WP:NOR. The article was created by a WP:SPA IP address back in 2005. GuardianH (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete unless better sources can be found. I couldn't find anything independent of Hoberman himself or University of Texas. Cnilep (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep -- ugh, this article is a mess, a minefield of BLP and SPA and NOR problems (even the photo!). I won't weep for it if it's deleted. But we do have a full professor at a major research university (usually a good sign of a WP:PROF likely pass) with books by U. Chicago Press and Houghton Mifflin, which is probably enough with any of the controversies to pass WP:AUTHOR. But what a mess. There's the old saying "AfD is not cleanup" but a Soft Delete (=expired PROD, no prejudice against creating again) might be a good way to deal with the major BLP issues. And yet, I think the subject is more likely notable than not. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as NACADEMIC. I did some bold editing, removed promotional stuff, but also added in some academic references. His most controversial book gets over ~1100 cites on G-scholar. It is quite possible that many of those are debunking his thesis, but I believe that still counts toward academic qualifications. Lamona (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I counted 14 reviews of his books (not all the same one) on JSTOR. I think he passes WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Passes both NACADEMIC and NAUTHOR. I stopped counting reviews of his books when I got to 20 for just the first two books I tried, and there is even published back-and-forth about them. Few academics can equal that for two books. Zerotalk 10:10, 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 redirect‎ to Lucas Estevan Soares#Independent Roads. Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Roads[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM. No in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources. A Google search only brings back this page, an IMDB page, and a Rotten Tomatoes page. Clearfrienda 💬 21:45, 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. Since this is almost certain to be relitigated, I'll provide a more detailed rationale for this decision.

The previous AfD for an almost-identical page was unanimously closed as Delete on 6 May 2024. On the same day, in reaction to this deletion, an editor created a page with almost the same title, boasting about getting around the AfD result by title-gaming. This was correctly deleted under WP:G4 by the closing admin, but when contested, the admin chose to err on the side of caution, and bring this to AfD.

Going by nose count, the Keeps and the Deletes are more or less balanced. Closer inspection, however, reveals that participation was largely driven by off-wiki canvassing, mobilizing members of the 33,000-strong Reddit sub to come to the defence of their pet page. But there was no need to engage in detective work here: the canvassed Keep votes were easily identifiable by their reliance on irrelevant arguments. Several Keeps limited their argument to attacking the previous AfD. That would have been a relevant argument at WP:DRV, where AfD results can be appealed. At this AfD, such arguments are meaningless. Even if the previous AfD reached the wrong conclusion, that would not be an argument to keep the article in this AfD.

Others noted that we must keep this page because it is the only place where all this information exists, having been painstakingly curated over a long period by devoted fans. That is not only a faulty argument for keeping an article under our notability guidelines, it in fact suggests the article qualifies as WP:OR, a policy that would render that information ineligible for Wikipedia. Other Keep arguments were of the WP:NOHARM, WP:USEFUL, or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type. Several Keeps referenced a suggestion on the previous AfD to refocus and rewrite the article. While collaboration between editors is a key element of this project, following the advice of one participant in an AfD is not an automatic sanctuary against deletion, or even a relevant argument to keep a page. Once we discard the irrelevant !votes not based on policy or guidelines, we're left with a clear consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 13:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors[edit]

List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
AfDs for this article:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested G4, just nearly unanimously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues (4th nomination) and re-created because this is a very important page to a large community of 30k people rather than because they believe the close was wrong. Jmajeremy raises a potential solution, but it does not appear this has happened and it remains just a directory. Star Mississippi 03:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think listing this article for deletion so soon is WP:ZEALOUS. Give the author(s) a chance to continue writing and editing. Looking at the previous AfD, the rationale several people gave was that a simple list of all IMAX venues would be long and not very useful. For example, one user wrote "Imax accreditation is no longer considered significant as there are hundreds of venues now that hold it", which is true, but this article doesn't seek to simply list all accredited IMAX theatres--that list is already available on IMAX's website--this article has the goal of only summarizing venues which have a particular type of projection equipment. It is very similar to articles like List of films released in IMAX and List of drive-in theaters, so if those articles aren't simple directories, I don't see why this article would be considered one. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 03:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good reason for keeping something, but taking List of drive-in theaters, it's a list of notable (i.e. having there own page) drive in movie theatres. This means it is a navigation list and passes WP:LISTPURP. It's also extensively sourced to independent secondary sources that themselves list "drive in theatres" thus it complies with WP:NLIST. This article does neither of these things. If you want to restrict this to only notable IMAX venues (like the drive-in article) you'd be left with 13 items (by my count of Category:IMAX venues) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The venues included in this list are in fact notable. Many of them do have dedicated articles even if they haven't yet been linked properly, and many of the other theatres on this list are notable enough to have their own articles, if someone was inclined to write them. Out of the 1700 IMAX theatres that exist, we're talking about only a few dozen around the world which would meet the criteria to be included on this list. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 17:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The technology used in an IMAX theater itself is VERY notable. Simply telling the aspect ratio is very notable. This is crucial information that is not easily available elsewhere. In fact IMAX corporate owners seem to deliberately suppress this information to make people accept their lesser theaters. Rbvamm (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The technology used in an IMAX theater itself is VERY notable. Which is currently covered in the IMAX article quite adequately. Simply telling the aspect ratio is very notable. I'm not really sure what your trying to say here, but we do in fact have articles on a variety of aspect ratios. This is crucial information that is not easily available elsewhere. Then there's no way this could be notable even beside its directory characteristics. Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL. In fact IMAX corporate owners seem to deliberately suppress this information to make people accept their lesser theaters. WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    KEEP the full list User:Jmajeremy it is a very useful resource there is NO reason to delete this Aselwyn1 (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article and the previous article are a compilation of information that amounts to more than a simple “phone book” repetition of theater venues. There is technical information concerning the screen aspect ratio's, screen sizes, and specific projection types that must be sourced individually. IMAX's official list has only basic data concerning venues that this list sought to add to, not merely repeat. This article needs significantly better sourcing and formatting improvements, but in my interpretation, I believe it's a useful concept and not a mere repetitive directory. FriendlyToaster (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The users who voted on the previous article being deleted clearly don’t know/understand IMAX formats. I don’t see how it was WP:NOTDIR. It was not a directory. It was a listing of IMAX venues with their technical information. Technical information, that is also not available anywhere else (including IMAXs own website). I can perhaps understand the deletion because there are too many regular IMAX xenon theatres to list and that makes it more of a directory. But a more specialised list of Laser and 70mm venues is not very long and should be kept. Mrblue6 (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The primary reasons for deleting the previous article were claims that the same information already exists online (it doesn’t yet) and it was WP:NOTDIR. Folks who want to keep it are trying to save this valuable information. Give them a chance to update this article and make it relevant. There is an effort to potentially create this information on GITHUB. Maybe that can be a better home for the information but even if that happens, for the general public (not just a niche community) looking for information on 15/70 IMAX screens, it just won’t be as convenient as this. Reportersteven (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know you have been around for a very long time, but in that time the purpose of Wikipedia ha changed dramatically. That's not remotely what the project is for, which renders this not a valid keep !vote. Star Mississippi 12:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PA I am disappointed to see a long-time WP editor using ad hominem to dismiss someone's viewpoint 143.58.201.143 (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is what Star Mississippi an ad hominem? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pronouncing someone's vote as invalid on the basis of the editors lack of familiarity with how the purpose of Wikipedia has allegedly evolved since they were last active, is no better than dismissing an argument because an editor is new to Wikipedia. 143.58.201.143 (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a recreation of a deleted article. If you have a problem with a close the place to go is WP:DR. A listing of IMAX venues with their technical information falls under the spirit of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but it more clearly falls under the letter of WP:NOTDATABASE. And this not available anywhere else is all the more reason to delete, as the job of Wikipedia is to follow the sources, not engage in original research or provide Free web hosting for your "WP:USEFUL" list. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not simply a list of IMAX venues with their technical information, it's a specific list of notable IMAX locations due to their rare projection technology. The information is all available elsewhere, but nowhere else in a single cohesive list. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 17:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are two main purposes for lists: to provide internal navigation for Wikipedia and to have lists for groupings that have been adequately discussed in reliable sources (e.g., List of drive-in theatres fits the first one, as it serves to link to Wikipedia pages; List of films released in IMAX fits the second, having been a common topic both the news and in certain filmmaking scholarly circles). This fits neither and as such, violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTPURPOSE. Also, fun fact. If you want to keep a list because the information is not anywhere else, then you basically just admitted that the list is not notable. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To respond to a few of these points: WP:NOTDIRECTORY lists 6 items articles are not. This list is clearly not 2-5, and doesn't fit the definition of 1. It is not trying to be a simple list of every theater out there, rather a specific subset of the theaters with the unique specifications of each venue cataloged. This provides context to the main IMAX article and valuable information to people interested in these theaters. The specs for 70mm and Laser showings was a topic that was widely discussed amongst theater goers and the media with recent releases such as Oppenheimer and Dune. A list is an ideal format for cataloging and documenting a small number of unique theaters like this. Many of which do actually have dedicated articles or deserve an article, which fits the points in WP:LISTPURPOSE to provide valuable information and be an aggregate to more articles. This article and its predecessor certainly do/did not provide adequate wiki linking or sourcing. This point is very accurate, but is not what it's being deleted for. On the last point, the assertion that the information is not available elsewhere and therefore is not notable is not accurate. This article compiles publicly available data from disparate sources, particularly technical specifications not listed within IMAX's own theater catalog. Specs that most theaters do discuss in press releases and local news. This curation yielded a resource otherwise unavailable and demonstrates value, while also not being WP:NOR as it's all basic information that's already been published. It's more than a simple repeat directory and does have notability. These articles represent efforts by the community to document and catalog their niche for others to learn about and share, and I still fail to see how it has broken rules in a way to merit deletion before improvement. FriendlyToaster (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the five key principles of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia[1], part of Wikipedia's own definition of an encyclopedia states that "[they provide] summaries of knowledge, either general or special, to a particular field or discipline."[2] My interpretation of this article is a summary of knowledge about IMAX theatres that has been gathered from many different sources meaning that it should be part of an encyclopedia, although admittedly the article needs citing and formatting improvements it should still be part of Wikipedia. additionally this article is similar to other articles such as list of james bond films[3] and if this article isn't considered against Wikipedia guidelines then I don't see why "list of imax venues with 15/70 and laser projectors" is either.Travelling nomad1 (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The term WP:Encyclopedia, like many terms used on Wikipedia, is a term of art, with a meaning that isn't necessarily exactly the definition you would find in a dictionary. The actual pillar (found at WP:5P1) says in part Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias [...]. Wikipedia is not [...] an advertising platform, [...] an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory. This is why people keep linking to WP:NOT, which is the policy which explains all the types of knowledge we don't include. We explicitly recommend that people take such knowledge to other outlets (see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm familiar with that policy, and I genuinely don't think it applies to this article. I would love to know which of the 6 categories described at WP:NOTDIR people think that this article falls under, because I have re-read it several times and none of them strike me as even remotely describing this article. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 17:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only is this a clear WP:NOTDIRECTORY fail, but this was created almost immediately when the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues (4th nomination) was due to close. The editor who created this new article had a history of just three edits at the time. It looks like an attempt to circumvent the preceding AfD outcome which had closed as delete. Ajf773 (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly makes this a clear fail? I would say it clearly is an appropriate topic for a list based on WP:SALAT. Yes the original author is fairly new to Wikipedia, but I don't think they're trying to circumvent anything, this is a new list with a more narrowly defined WP:LISTCRIT which takes into account the concerns raised in the previous AfD. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 17:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. WP:USEFUL is not a suitable keep argument here and the venues are not discussed as a group in secondary sources, failing WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NLIST. There is no sourcing discussing these as a group. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bold this is genuinely encyclopaedic content that gathers specific knowledge that is not easily accessible elsewhere. These types of venues are clearly notable as they are discussed at length in the media whenever a new premium format movie is released, and acclaimed directors such as Christopher Nolan and Denis Villenueve have told the best way to experience their work is to find one of these premium venues and watch it there. I think there is a temptation for wikipedia editors who are not film enthusiasts to dismiss this article as not notable or important, but I would caution them to consider the popularity of the cinema hobby before casting such a judgement. There are thousands of lists of less notable special interest venues all across Wikipedia, so it would be a strange injustice to delete this one given the relative mass appeal. 143.58.201.143 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that WP:BOLD applies here. As you look above different views have already been established.
These types of venues are clearly notable as they are discussed at length in the media
It is helpful if you provide sources when you make statements such as this.
I think there is a temptation for wikipedia editors who are not film enthusiasts to dismiss this article as not notable or important, but I would caution them to consider the popularity of the cinema hobby before casting such a judgement.
The article is being considering inline with notability not film enthusiasm.
There are thousands of lists of less notable special interest venues all across Wikipedia, so it would be a strange injustice to delete this one given the relative mass appeal.
Strange things can happen but it is not a reason to engage in whataboutism. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per JmaJeremy and Travelling nomad 1. This article, as other editors have also mentioned, was created based on a suggestion given for the deletion of "List of IMAX venues," which was to make an article that focuses on a specific subsection of IMAX theatres, as opposed to listing every single one. And this article has done that, being created for specifically 15/70 or laser projection IMAX theatres. An argument for this article's deletion is that there are not enough credible sources. This can be fixed by giving the editors of this article more time to add information and citations. This article is not a directory, as it isn't just a list of venues, rather a collection of tables which provide additional information, such as types of film projectors, screen dimensions, sound system type, aspect ratio, etc. Mjks28 (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So we are just supposed to trust, that this article which was recreated to get around the consensus at the last WP:AFD (as the creator has said at reddit), meats WP:NLIST because there WP:MUSTBESOURCES and we just need to give editors (who don't seem to see a problem with having "information not found anywhere else on the net") a little more time. Now is the time for people wanting to keep the article to find multiple in depth sources to demonstrate this meets WP:NLIST. Also I don't see how your solution to being a directory is to add more unverifiable/synthy information. Presumably we would could therefore have List of Plumbers in New York as long as we added a bunch of other WP:INDISCRIMINATE information in a table format. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of us were not aware of the previous deletion request, but now see how valuable this list is once it was missing. Consider List of airports in Australia, that is far more of a directory than this page is. In fact, this page is based on collecting secondary sources which is the very purpose of wikipedia. Mattximus (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the airports are independently notable, thus it serves as a navigation system for Wikipedia. This is no such type of list. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very much disagree. Many of these venues are notable, even the flagship IMAXes in their countries or cities, with their own articles and histories and details. For those, it does serve as a navigation system, and prevents orphaned articles. Criticalus (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the articles are about the museums or independently notable theatres that happen to have IMAX. The fact that these places include the format is a non-defining trait for all of these. Most of these pages do not even mention the fact that they have IMAX screens. Very much a bad argument. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTINHERITED is the key policy here. Let'srun (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors are currently finding and citing sources for the venues, I'm just saying that adding sources cannot be done instantly, and that editors will require more time to properly add multiple sources for each venue. Mjks28 (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a very useful list for finding "real" Imaxes, which the official page does not distinguish, and as such based on a compiliation of secondary sources, exactly the purview of wikipedia. It is thus not a directory, but a researched and very handy list. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER so there is no harm in leaving up a page so many of us find useful. Mattximus (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refer to WP:USEFUL and WP:NOHARM. We need to see WP:N, and so far that has not been provided as it pertains to the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, here is a secondary source [4] that talks about how the specific aspect ratio of some imaxes are the "real thing" and some are not. This information is collected in the same way as any other article of wikipedia. It follows from this one link I provided that there is value in creating a list (not found elsewhere) of these specific types of imaxes. Mattximus (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I applaud the desire to keep Wikipedia within scope, and trim the number of lists generally. However, this particular list is extremely useful to the Wiki in a few ways. It uses secondary sourcing to confirm and augment data that is then used in infoboxes across the mainspace. It also provides vital links connecting various IMAX articles that would otherwise be orphaned. Notability has already been established - IMAX is the most popular large-format theatrical experience globally, it receives significant coverage across many reliable sources, including quality third-party sources like LF Examiner which were dedicated to its coverage, and this list is the connective tissue that makes the many articles surrounding IMAX navigable. Criticalus (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the issue here is these aren't secondary sources. About us, and theatre listings are primary and just confirm they exist, which isn't helpful for notability. Star Mississippi 13:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I rewrote the lead paragraph to provide sourced inclusion criteria from a secondary source as someone above mentioned was needed to ensure the list was not a directory. I hope this is what was meant by the comment. This can of course be improved with further sourcing and better wording but I think this should meet the requirement. Mattximus (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The single source given above would be a good source for the IMAX article (or one on True IMAX), but this is not those articles, and still fails WP:NOTDIR as it still a list of (mostly) non-notable locations, based if they happen to have bought a particular companies projector system. If you want to make an article on 'true IMAX' starting with those sources instead of trying to graft it on to an list that fails WP:NOT more than it does WP:N (although I also think it fails WP:LISTN as well). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting proposition, would you consider a new page called True Imax, which contains this list within it, no longer a directory? I strongly disagree that it is just a directory as the rarity of these projectors is notable itself. But this may be an interesting compromise. Mattximus (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    could we even rename this page and add the extra information while retaining the list? Travelling nomad1 (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it would still be a directory (of mostly non-notable locations that happen to have a particular service) whether the title had the word list in it. Just to make it clear when we use the term WP:NOTABILITY on Wikipedia we are (almost always) referring to WP:GNG, not what individual editor think is WP:IMPORTANT or rare. My suggestion was to take these sources which discuss the topic as a whole, and the information already in IMAX, and create a prose article on it based on those sources (in a way that complies with WP:N and WP:PROPORTION). It may then be appropriate to include a list of notable venues as example (that is to say, have articles, or are very likely have articles) but I highly doubt most of these would make the cut. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE apply to this article, as well as the group not meeting WP:LISTN. The article is just a list of mostly non-notable theaters and they are not discussed together as a group. WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:MUSTBESOURCES are not great arguments, and canvassing on Reddit doesn't look great either. Wikipedia is WP:NOTWEBHOST and there are plenty of other places available to hold random lists. Plenty of places have an IMAX theater, it's not some grand revelation whether they do or not. Also seems like a way to just try and get around the previous deletion of List of IMAX theaters (it's even a redirect to the page). StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    these theatres are notable in themselves for having this rare projection equipment out of the hundreds of thousands of theatres and thousands of IMAX theatres only a small number have this rare and advanced equipment, equipment that has been lengthily discussed in the media and among cinema-goers in recent months with the release of Oppenheimer and Dune part 2. Does that not make these cinemas notable? Travelling nomad1 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be worth trying to create articles on more of the entries in this list. Garuda3 (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do really think most of these venues would meet WP:N. A reminder that notability is NOTINHERITED on the basis that something provides a rare services but on the basis of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:GNG) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fancruft meets Listcruft. Wikipedia is not a directory, this list needs to pass NLIST, nothing found in the article or in BEFORE that show this has been discussed as a group. Nothing in the article indicates it serves a navigation purpose. No sources found in the above Keep fanspam and the canvassing is obvious.  // Timothy :: talk  17:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia#
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_films#Non-Eon_films

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE too. In short, Wikipedia is not Tripadvisor. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you specify which part of WP:NOTDIRECTORY this falls under? It seems to pass the list, in the same way list of airports would pass. This is not a list of IMAXes which I agree would just be a directory, it's a list of a specific, rare kind of projector that many secondary sources call "True IMAX", many of the items on the list are indeed links to significant venues. Since WP:NOTPAPER what is the harm in keeping this list as it grows to become more connected and the venues get their own pages? What's the rush to delete? Every day it's up it helps more people. Mattximus (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep When I think of an 'encyclopedic' listing, I think of a focused listing. I believe the point of this list article is to list the 'authentic' Imax venues. But it covers all of the various non-2K Imax venues. It then becomes more or less an almanac or directory listing. Would it be improved by splitting into 70mm film venues and another directed at Laser venues? The 70mm could include closed theatres to improve its 'encyclopedic' value? I do think this list is useful as is, that's why I lean to keep. I leave it to the authors to improve this listing to be more encyclopedic. A 70mm listing could more or less be an article on the 70mm film format. I'm not sure about the laser venues. And some of the other odd format or screen information. IMAX formats are, I think, notable, but certainly not every venue. Alaney2k (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The related deletion discussion (it was disussed as a point of comparison in the above reddit post), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of premium large format cinema screens in the UK, was just closed as delete. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NLIST states: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. There is little to no coverage of "IMAX venues with 15/70 or laser projection". This differs from "IMAX 15/70 projection" or "IMAX laser projection"; while there may be significant coverage of those systems, there isn't coverage of the theaters using those systems as a group. The only source provided here as secondary coverage (diff) focuses only on 70mm film systems, not the broader group (a new, separate list of only 70mm locations might be fine – see here, here, here, etc. for coverage). Regarding comments that this list doesn't match the examples at WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, those are only examples (WP:NOTEVERYTHING: The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive); the point is that Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists and that being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The previous article shouldn't have been deleted. I'm shocked it was done so cavalierly. To wit: The AfD nomination cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY but as several people already pointed out, the article didn't match the WP:NOTDIRECTORY description in letter or in spirit (it wasn't a list of links to theater websites, phone numbers, or addresses), rather it contained relevant technical information (projector types, aspect ratios, screen dimensions), along with definitions and sources. The AfD nomination then referenced WP:USEFUL but conveniently left out the part about "in a vacuum" (more on that point below). So with both of the AfD arguments being mooted, the nomination itself was moot. But of the 8 delete votes, we find a collection of problems: 6 repeated the WP:NOTDIRECTORY fallacy, 4 were basically "per nom" votes, 3 clearly misunderstood the article (they thought it included digital "LieMax" venues), and 1 claimed the IMAX website itself had better information than the list (which is laughable and false). The previous AfD wasn't a discussion, it was a railroading. With 8 simple votes, the AfD speedily removed an article that was (1) useful, (2) popular, (3) notable, (4) had technical merit, and (5) included multiple sources -- all of which was discussed in the three previous attempts to remove it. While it's true that any one of those characteristics on its own ("in a vacuum") might not be enough to keep an article, if an article has *all* of those qualities, you need to have a much stronger case for removal. Beating the vague WP:NOTDIRECTORY drum over and over again (or making other dubious arguments and weak claims) isn't enough to overcome the actual value of a good article. If nothing else, the list of IMAX venues (both previous and current iterations) provides readers with real insight and clarity in the face of the IMAX corporation's deliberate obfuscation. But the content of the article is more than that -- it's how a good Wikipedia article is supposed to be written. The removal of the previous article was a mistake based on weak arguments and no real discussion. The current article should stay because it's a good, quality article (see items 1 through 5 above) and there's no actual good reason to remove it, just weak arguments repeated over and over.Jonovitch (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to have time respond to your entire wall of text but, The AfD nomination then referenced WP:USEFUL but conveniently left out the part about "in a vacuum" (more on that point below) in turn ignores the following sentence which explains This way, other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic according to Wikipedia's policies. In your comment I see no refences to how the policies support your position. instead you gave points which by-and-large are WP:ATA: (1) WP:USEFUL, (2) WP:POPULAR, (3) WP:JUSTNOTABLE, (4) WP:ASSERTN, and (5) WP:MUSTBESOURCES (reminder we want reliable, published sources about the group be, which none of the ones currently in the article are).
  • As far as your dislike of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I recommend you read RunningTiger123's explanation above. I also note you didn't respond to the WP:NOTDATABASE which says: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will take the time to respond; I think a clear and thorough discussion is important, especially when countering so many points.
I read the explanation above. He says "those are only examples" but then fails to explain how this article counts as WP:NOTDIRECTORY -- others made the same empty claim in this and the previous AfD discussion. But the article doesn't fit the common definition of a directory, it doesn't fit any of the listed examples in WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and repeating the claim without backing it up with an explanation doesn't make it so. That's why the previous deletion was so surprising and wrong -- it was flawed from top to bottom:
  • The nomination claimed it's a case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but didn't back it up with any explanation why, which goes against WP:AFDFORMAT: "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy."
  • The 1st vote repeated the claim with no explanation, which is WP:JUSTAPOLICY, then claimed the IMAX website is more useful and more accurate (which is false and false, as they publish very little technical information).
  • The 2nd vote was just barely more than WP:JUSTAPOLICY.
  • The 3rd vote was WP:PERNOM.
  • The 4th vote was also basically WP:PERNOM, with a follow-up comment referring to digital LieMAX, which wasn't even part of the article ("tell me you didn't read the article without telling me...").
  • The 5th vote was WP:JUSTAPOLICY plus another reference to digital LieMAX (irrelevant to the article).
  • The 6th vote was an impressive combo of WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY.
  • The 7th comment was the only one that contained actual, helpful discussion.
  • The 8th vote was another impressive combo of WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY.
  • The 9th vote takes the cake: a trifecta of WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY *and* an irrelevant reference to digital LieMAX theaters.
There was no good basis for deleting the previous article; it was decided by a series of flawed votes and almost no discussion, which is against WP:AFDFORMAT: "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments."
You're right that WP:NOTDATABASE says, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." This article passes all of those tests. The article's intro paragraphs provide context for the data in the list, complete with explanations and independent sources. Thank you for pointing that out.
So what should an article be? From WP:N, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." IMAX 15/70 film theaters have been notable, by any definition, for decades, and in the last year have only become more so (e.g., due to Oppenheimer and Dune 2) because of their technical superiority to regular theaters, immense size, unique aspect ratio, and rarity (BTW, this fixes WP:JUSTNOTABLE) -- as pointed out in countless news stories across the globe (BTW, this isn't WP:ASSERTN -- do I really need to google it for you?). The newer GT-format laser variations (with 1.43:1 aspect ratio) are also notable for the same reasons. All citations in the article are from verifiable sources, some are news articles independent of theater websites (which are sometimes a necessary source of data), and only a very small handful are from the IMAX corporate website. BTW, this isn't WP:MUSTBESOURCES, as you tried to claim earlier -- there *are* plenty of articles about 15/70 and GT-format laser theaters. On the contrary, your argument sounds more like it goes against WP:NEXIST. This current article has some sources cited, and editors will continue to add more -- there are plenty in existence to choose from.
It seems that most people agree 15/70 film and GT laser are notable and should be in a list -- especially since they are discussed in (and linked from) the main IMAX article. And everyone seems to agree that digital LieMAX theaters aren't notable and don't belong in a list (and have never been included in the article, an exclusion pointed out clearly in the article's intro paragraph). The argument seems to come down to the "IMAX with Laser" theaters, which are better than digital LieMAX but not as notable as the 15/70 and GT laser versions. We could have a discussion whether to remove "IMAX with Laser" theaters from the list (especially as they become more ubiquitous if/when digital LieMAX theaters start to upgrade to laser), but that is certainly not grounds for deleting the entire article.
Note: the many flavors of "IMAX" along with the IMAX corporation's refusal to clarify the differences is what leads to a lot of confusion, and that is exactly why this article is so useful: to help moviegoers understand the differences and see exactly why one flavor of IMAX is superior to the others. BTW, this passes the WP:USEFUL test: "a cogent argument must be more specific: who is the content useful for, and why?" And it passes the WP:LISTPURP test under Information: "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list." It should also be noted this is not a case of WP:TDLI -- IMAX corporation isn't trying to suppress this kind of information, they're just not publishing it themselves.
To summarize: (1) No evidence has been provided to support the claims of WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:NOTDATABASE (which goes against WP:AFDFORMAT), and plenty of people have countered those empty claims with solid rebuttals. (2) The previous article was deleted based on flawed WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY votes (which also goes against WP:AFDFORMAT) combined with irrelevant references to things that weren't even in the article. (3) This current article passes the tests of WP:N, WP:LISTPURP, and WP:USEFUL as outlined above. I recommend we close this discussion as Keep, spend our energy instead on improving the list and sources, and not keep trying to delete a clearly notable, purposeful, useful article. Jonovitch (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree with this argument, although for now, single laser venues are notable in my opinion. as older digital venues upgrade it is likely that they won't be notable anymore and when that time comes the article will need to be majorly updated but for now I believe that single laser venues remain notable.Travelling nomad1 (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is starting to turn into a Gish gallop, so I won't go into every one of these points, but mentioning the previous deletion is entirely irrelevant and this is the wrong venue to relitigate that close. If you think the close was incorrect and meets the criteria at WP:DRVPURPOSE, take it to deletion review (though I strongly suspect it would be upheld – since consensus was clear, there was no need for exhaustive discussion). Otherwise, we should focus on this article only. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apology, I wasn't trying to litigate the previous deletion so much as illustrate that the previous and current nominations both went against WP:AFDFORMAT, which says, "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." There have been lots of claims of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but nobody has explained how the article violates that policy, even after multiple requests for an explanation, only restating the claim, which is a bad argument per WP:JUSTAPOLICY. On the other hand, many comments above have explained how the article doesn't violate that policy. Jonovitch (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: how long do AfD discussions last?Travelling nomad1 (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It usually lasts for seven days. However, this discussion was relisted above so it will be opened for a longer period of time. Jolly1253 (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The editor who removed the speedy deletion tag claimed that "this new page does not seek to reverse the deletion of the old one, this article seeks to address the concerns with the old page and create a new one that meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion." How can it address any concerns when it is exactly the same article with a different title?
This new article has the same problem as the old one, namely a woeful lack of sources. It's largely a cobbled together mishmash of guesswork and original research. If it was to be submitted for a new page review, it would immediately be rejected.
For example, one of the additions made to the old article had an edit summary of "I emailed the manager". Why would that be necessary if the information was available elsewhere? The simple truth is that this article will never be adequately sourced because the majority of the information isn't readily available; a fact that has been admitted by several of the commentators above:
"This is crucial information that is not easily available elsewhere."
"Technical information, that is also not available anywhere else (including IMAXs own website)."
"The primary reasons for deleting the previous article were claims that the same information already exists online (it doesn’t yet)"
"This curation yielded a resource otherwise unavailable"
"gathers specific knowledge that is not easily accessible elsewhere"
Furthermore, of the few sources which have been added to the article, many are inadequate and you don't have to trawl very far to spot this. Take the first five sourced entries under the "Digital Projector" column, which share two sources. Neither of these sources detail the exact type of projector system in use, only that they have laser projection. So those three mentions of "IMAX CoLa" remain unsourced.
I believe the article should be deleted, but at a minimum it needs to be moved to draft and be properly sourced before it is moved back to mainspace. And by properly sourced, I mean every entry, including all those projector types, aspect ratios and screen dimensions. I predict the editors braying to keep the article will soon realise the impossibility of the task. Barry Wom (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read "woeful lack of sources" and then looked and saw 343 references. Yes, they're not all journalistic sources and some are repeats, but 343 is a lot more than zero.
Also, it sounds like some of the quoted comments are deliberately misinterpreted -- "not available anywhere else" is colloquial shorthand/hyperbole for "the information might be out there if you know where to look, but it's hard to find and not all in one place."
That said, there are a couple valid points here. Emailing the manager may be a good way to get information, but it's not a valid source by Wikipedia's standards. It is harder to find journalistic sources for "IMAX with Laser" theaters, and IMAX corporation doesn't like to publish technical specifications, so I think that's one of the main challenges of including the "IMAX with Laser" multiplex theaters in this list. But it's not an impossible task.
We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Should we refine and improve this article? Definitely. Should we delete the whole thing because parts of it have flaws? Definitely not. That might be the fastest solution, but it's not actually helpful. Jonovitch (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A significant proportion of those 343 references are simple links to theater websites, but if you insist, I'll do some further trawling.
There are 385 theaters in the list. The "Digital Projection" column has sources for 49 of those. By my count, 12 of those sources are invalid because they do not specify the projector type. A further is a link to a blog. So 36/385 are properly sourced (9%).
Screen dimensions: 27/385 (7%).
Screen Aspect ratio: 1/385 (0.3%)
Both Maximum AR for digital projection and Maximum AR for film projection: zero sources.
It is harder to find journalistic sources for "IMAX with Laser" theaters, and IMAX corporation doesn't like to publish technical specifications.
If it's hard to find journalistic sources, and neither the IMAX corporation nor the theaters themselves publish technical information, then from where do you suggest the sources are going to come? To pick a single random example, how do we confirm that the TGV Sunway Velocity in Kuala Lumpur has a CoLa projector? Barry Wom (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you missed it. I was trying to agree with you on this point. I do think it's a harder argument to include the list of "IMAX with Laser" locations, in part for the reasons you stated. Could they be moved to a separate section? I think so. Should they be removed? Maybe. Should the rest of the list/article be deleted from Wikipedia? No, in part (but not only) because there are more sources more readily available. Jonovitch (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep. I came here to close this (which would have been a no-consensus close), but I find that it would be more productive to provide an opinion on the matter. Clearly the list needs sourcing, but if it were in fact reduced to those entries that 1) have or clearly should have articles, and 2) are sourced, that by itself would be adequate to support having a list, and demonstrating the notability of the subject as a group. BD2412 T 01:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pyotr Kosarevsky[edit]

Pyotr Kosarevsky (edit | talk | history | 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 BLP, his career is largely confined to second-level football. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milford Keresoma[edit]

Milford Keresoma (edit | talk | history | 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) 21:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Bomer[edit]

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

None of the sources provided provide the kind of WP:DEPTH needed for WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:13, 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 Sabor line. Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lamelas halt[edit]

Lamelas halt (edit | talk | history | 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 be notable (and it has been affirmatively established by sitewide consensus that train stations are not inherently notable). The first source is just an entry in a list, and the second only supports the line the station is on being closed. There is nothing of substance provided about the station itself. Could potentially be redirected to Sabor line. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:00, 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 KASA-TV. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KTEL-CD[edit]

KTEL-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)
KUPT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; few sources; needs updating. Could merge with KASA-TV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:58, 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 Niles Canyon Railway#Notable steam locomotives. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pickering Lumber Co. 12[edit]

Pickering Lumber Co. 12 (edit | talk | history | 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 (really, any coverage at all) of this locomotive in secondary sources. Appears to fail GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and California. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sadly as a railfan, I must vote for deletion. There is no coverage other than the Nyles Canyon Railway's blog for sourcing, and some photos of the locomotive. Not meeting GNG. Some coverage in this book, but it's a directory listing [5] Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If sources cannot be found then this should be redirected to Niles Canyon Railway#Notable steam locomotives (although that section might be better named just "Steam locomotives") where it is mentioned. I don't see any benefit in deleting the sourced information present in the article. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, apologies for the late reply.
    As expected and mentioned in your message, no additional sources about her have been found, therefore, i completely agree to redirect her page to Niles_Canyon_Railway#Notable_steam_locomotives, and delete her page.
    I'm glad we could come up with a solution ^^ Christian40213 (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize the one and only source in the article is a photo with no additional information from some dude's blog, right? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that relevant to what I wrote? I'm not arguing to keep the article in its present state or merge unverified information. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only sourced information within the article is that the locomotive showed up at an event in 1986. You said I don't see any benefit in deleting the sourced information present in the article but I don't see any valid sourced information. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ace-Liam Nana Sam Ankrah[edit]

Ace-Liam Nana Sam Ankrah (edit | talk | history | 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 idiotic... This is an article about a one-year old who has been declared the youngest male artist by Guinness because, like any child, he can randomly put paint on a canvas. It seems pretty clear that there will never be sustained coverage of him. Pichpich (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Ghana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Well, there are a grand total of two news articles in Yen News about the child; we don't hold Guinness Records as notable, so I'm not sure what's left for notability... A child that draws pictures is what every child, everywhere on the planet, does. I don't see notability, at all. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps a merge to Guinness World Records as a brief mention somewhere but other than that, no, Wikipedia does hold individual Guinness Record holders as notable in themselves. -- œ™ 09:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing you meant to write: "no, Wikipedia does NOT hold individual Guinness Record holders as notable in themselves"? Pichpich (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes thank you for correcting my error. -- Ϫ 12:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need to merge to Guinness World Records as this is extremely minor based on very few sources over just a short period of time. Elspea756 (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This GWR is usually not a criteria for being notable except at a great case like Hilda Baci, Lata Tondon, etc. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. No valid argument was brought up by the clearly canvassed voters. Owen× ☎ 05:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RefugePoint[edit]

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

Sourcing is largely not independent and the remaining sourcing fails to provide significant coverage. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Key information about the organization, including its mission statement and how many people it has reached have changed. Abfdesigns (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC) — abfdesigns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"It has a mission statement" is not relevant. Almost every organization has a mission statement. DS (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The mission statement for this organization was recently updated and the new changes reflect this. Editor has updated this wiki to be less promotional/more neutral, as well as added multiple external sources. Alipapp7 (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC) — Alipapp7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. I opened many of the refs and none supported notability. They were trivial mentions, routine coverage or tangential. This is a small organisation and not suitable for inclusion. Desertarun (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Desertarun, thanks for your feedback. I genuinely want to improve this page and provide accurate and helpful information. I am not sure what the standard for what constitutes a small vs large organization, but I noticed that many organizations that would be considered "peer" organizations to RefugePoint also have pages, such as HIAS, Women's Refugee Commission, Church World Service, and the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP). I see that IRAP's page is flagged as a "stub" and has this note from Wikipedia: "This article about a philanthropic or charitable organization in the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." The page about RefugePoint is an article about a charitable organization, and the edits I suggested were an attempt to help Wikipedia to expand information about the organization and to update outdated information. If there are specific action steps that can be suggested to improve this page and avoid deletion, please advise. Thank you.Abfdesigns (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've given no valid arguments for keeping this. You need to read our notability policies, particularly WP:NORG. Further, your arguments amount to whataboutism, which is not an arguemnt that should be used here. The specifics you need to understand is that the sources need to fulfill WP:SIRS; if there are not three sources that all meet SIRS, then the subject is not notable, and therefore does not merit an article. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 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 delete‎. I don't think I've seen "professional" used as a noun and not an adjective before in an article page title. Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Bari (professional)[edit]

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

Resume BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, are mainly promo bios and name mentions in routine mill news, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  15:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halo @Timothy.
I'm trying to revise again to ensure that the language tone I'm using meets WP:SIRS. I make sure that the media referenced is registered by government institutions. You can check the names of the media here . If you think there's anything inappropriate, please let me know which parts need revision so I can learn and become more enthusiastic about contributing to Wikipedia. All the references I use are addressing the subject directly and deeply about Abdul Bari profile (not just ordinary news) regarding his education and career.
The writing style commonly used by Indonesian media when profiling someone often revolves around key moments. For instance, when they assume a certain position, celebrate a birthday, or receive an award. In Indonesia, these are referred to as non-trivial news.
Thanks Deniirawan82 (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in english 'Professional' is usually qualified by an occupation or skill... if he is a business person, the word professional would not normally be used. JarrahTree 14:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough notability for a standalone article. Being a director of a state-owned enterprise does not confer automatic notability as it didn't satisfy WP:NPOL. His other achievements also didn't pass the notability threshold. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:07, 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! 20:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:TNT, WP:BLP, and WP:NOTRESUME. I can't believe someone paid for this horrid mess. Let's start with the title. It implies that he is a male hustler. It's so vague as to leave the reader to assume the worst, and at best, there is no allegation of notability. It goes downhill from there. In 2024 everyone knows we are not a LinkedIn. Nor are we a free web host for every minor semi-government bureaucrat. This can not be fixed via ordinary editing, so TNT applies. Bearian (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Based on checking, The article does not meet WP:GNG, as no significant covarage of the subject from multiple independent sources are found. GrabUp - Talk 16:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article does not meet WP:GNG lacks coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew O'Connor (writer)[edit]

Andrew O'Connor (writer) (edit | talk | history | 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 really think this person is notable enough. It has zero sources, and that it hasn't been really expanded that much. JuniperChill (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. JuniperChill (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Nom is based purely on the current stage of the article and not on the notability of the subject. If a basic BEFORE had been done the Sydney Morning Herald linked in the Tuvalu (novel) page would have been seen demonstrating that the subject does not have zero sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Duffbeerforme: that is still only one source that goes towards establishing notability. A Google search I did found a bunch of references to 'Andrew O'Connor' but I suspect that none of them are this Andrew O'Connor. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually did say about the notability in the first sentence. Maybe I forgot to say that my Google search mostly returns the actor. Also, Google seems to no longer return the number of results I have been getting (in the form of about 1,000,000 results (0.10 seconds)). We have many pages without sources but I think due to the new rules, any articles created today without sources will almost certainly result in an AFD, merge, redirect or drafts. JuniperChill (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are only finding hits for others then refine your search. This man wrote a book called Tuvalu so search for "Andrew O'Connor" Tuvalu and you may get better results, such as [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Simple really. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Single EL source in article does not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth, nothing found in BEFORE that has SIGCOV from independent sources. Info from sources found related to Awards and nominations does not meet SIGCOV and would fail WP:IS. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  15:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Austlit lists 17 works about his works. Below are from some of the better known publications listed. Info from sources found related to Awards and nominations does meet SIGCOV and would pass WP:IS.duffbeerforme (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pierce, Peter (23 September 2006), "Gaining in translation", The Age
Full length review of Tuvalu. (Peter Pierce is professor of Australian literature at James Cook University.)
Stubbings, Diane (19 August 2006), "All-absorbing look at search for an elusive dream", The Canberra Times
Full length review of Tuvalu.
Ley, James (19 August 2006), "The island in the mind", The Sydney Morning Herald
Full length review of Tuvalu.
Tucker, Genevieve (6 September 2006), "Fraught between two worlds", The Australian
Full length review of Tuvalu.
The Sydney Morning Herald
Article about O'Connor.
  • Keep: this is a classic case of an editor equating a lack of references with notability. It has needed, and has now received, an edit that includes a number of references. The author's novel, Tuvalu, is an Australian prize-winner, which makes it notable. To delete the page of the author of that novel would diminish the encyclopedia. The page still needs more work rather than a deletion. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:24, 12 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, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMDF-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a burst of really interesting coverage at its launch, but otherwise, the record is pretty lackluster. RabbitEars doesn't even seem to know what its main channel airs. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The WGAY-LP coverage and the extra source I slid in, should be enough to justify keeping the article into Wikipedia. Danubeball (talk) 21:13, 5 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) 18:06, 7 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! 20:22, 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! 03:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dastak Welfare and Development Organization[edit]

Dastak Welfare and Development Organization (edit | talk | history | 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 this Pakistani NGO passing the WP:NCORP. Fails WP:GNG as well. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:25, 7 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! 20:18, 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 speedy keep‎. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mannat Murad[edit]

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

Articles doesn't meet WP:GNG as per WP:Notability (television) Sameeerrr (talk) 19:37, 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! 22:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri (TV series)[edit]

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

This TV drama clearly fails to meet GNG as I couldn't even find ROTM coverage in RS besides some namechecks coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - A WP:NTV series meets WP:GNG, substantial sources, free images available on Google search. Have million of views on YouTube. Popular in South Asian region as well. Rather than WP:AfD, should have been tagged for "Additional Citations".Sameeerrr (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

    • Sameeerrr, NTV is an essay and you have to provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only references that discuss it at length are NEWSORGINDIA so not reliable. Having "free images available on Google Search," "million of views on YouTube," or "popular in South Asian region" is not a policy based reason to keep. @Sameeerrr:, I would invite you to add the "additional citations" you feel it should be tagged for. If you are able to do so I will take a look as maybe I missed something in my search. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey CNMall41, added multiple citations which I found on Google search and referred as "Additional Citations" in my vote. I'll look for more tomorrow morning in the local language search. Sameeerrr (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And which ones do NOT fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA as they are all churnalism with the exception of one. Looking closer, this page looks more like a way to promote a film for Khushhal Khan (actor), not surprisingly both pages were heavily worked on by undisclosed paid editors. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BBC News, Independent Urdu, NDTV are WP:RS. Not sure if it's a way to promote XYZ actor or promotion by a UPE. I added "Additional Citation" which I was asked for. Sameeerrr (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I am questioning which SPECIFIC link does not fall under that criteria. These are all reliable publications but the specific sources are not. There is a difference when evaluating that guideline. Also note that adding more sources is not helping as it only clutters the page and those attempting to evaluate. It is the quality of the sources that matter. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm supporting my vote here prevalent to "Additional Citations". WP:NEWSORGINDIA isn't what I'm concerned about, that's your opinion and I respect it. IMO, sources added are adequate enough to establish WP:GNG. Sameeerrr (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sameeerrr, Why don't you provide THREE best sources that you believe should be sufficient to meet GNG? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I do appreciate your desire to keep this page, "additional citations" is not a criteria for Wikipedia notability. Without pointing out the requested citations that show notability, I would not be able to change my vote. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask you to change your vote @CNMall41.Sameeerrr (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon Cajun Ranch McCrispy[edit]

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

No indication of notability. A BEFORE has shown no sources that establish it. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 18:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete a limited time fast food item has no place as a standalone article. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete or Redirect Limited time item with no analysis of cultural impact. Article is not ready. Evident to me that the user is currently just messing around on Wikipedia given edit summaries and uploads of images. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 05:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 1ctinus and Classicwiki. Doubtful that the article creator's account will be around much longer. Wikishovel (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now the article's been speedy deleted G5. "I guess that concludes negotiations." Wikishovel (talk) 17:12, 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 redirect‎ to 7th Sky Entertainment#Current programmes as a reasonable ATD. Owen× ☎ 05:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirf Tum (2023 TV series)[edit]

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

This TV drama fails to meet GNG as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this, this and even this is not enough to meet GNG. Point to note, The News which produced the media coverage and Geo TV that aired this TV show are part of the same Jang Media Group. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - A WP:NTV series that meets WP:GNG, substantial sources, free images available on Google search. Rather than WP:AfD, should have been tagged for "Additional Citations".Sameeerrr (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet) S0091 (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: TrendingSocial is a WP:blog post (the source appears to be a content farm), The News is a press release/announcement, Galaxy Lollywood is a blog, Geo Television network is a primary source and not independent, and Samaaa is a press release (trailer). None of the sources meet GNG criteria. S0091 (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But on Google search there are sources available which can be incorporated in the article to improve WP:GNG. Sameeerrr (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sameeerrr Please present WP:THREE you believe meet GNG so they can be assessed. Saying sources exist is not enough especially given so far you have not shown (yet) you understand the GNG sourcing criteria. S0091 (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    S0091, WP:COMPETENCE is missing. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's starting to seem that way, yes. Prior to their comment above, I told them on their talk page saying sources exists is not enough in addition to now twice explaining WP:V vs. WP:N. @Sameeerrr the other thing is if you continue making poor arguments, closers will ignore your Keep !votes or give them less weight. Bear in mind, AfD is not a vote (thus !vote, with ! meaning "not"). Closers assess the strength of the arguments based on Wikipedia's WP:PAGs. S0091 (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @S0091 it's not just about adding sources. The show is WP:NOTABLE, only if it wasn't, why'd it be covered by the major newspapers, media outlets and I mentioned Google search cause that's how we look out for subject coverage. WP:AfD mentions it too to look out for the material. And there was a timing difference, I saw your comment here first and your message on my talk later. IMO, I still think that it deserves to stay on Wikipedia or can be improved with sources rather than being here for WP:AfD Sameeerrr (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least Redirect to 7th_Sky_Entertainment#Current_programmes (other targets can be considered). There are the various references in the article, or mentioned above, not all them very good (although Galaxy Lolllywood does not seem to be a blog in the common acception of that term, at least (=personal)). Some coverage about a controversial scene. There is also:
A bylined article in Hello India, that wrote Sirf Tum revolves around Abeer, Hanan and Hamza, played by Anmol Baloch, Hamza Sohail and Mohsin Abbas Haider. Abeer’s return from abroad sparks clashes with her traditional family, leading to a broken engagement with rebellious Hamza. A forced marriage with responsible Hanan ensues, marked by initial reluctance. As they navigate challenges, Abeer and Hanan’s bond deepens into a strong friendship. Hamza’s interference with Sarah adds complexity, but Abeer and Hanan overcome misunderstandings, declare their love and promise to stay together forever. With a backdrop of rebellion and societal norms, the narrative poses questions about love, resilience and the pursuit of happiness.
-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, This is ROTM coverage and Galaxy Lollywood is PR agency. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"ROTM", according to you. And GL is now a "PR agency", I thought it was "a blog"? Is it both? (rhetorical, no need to reply (:D)) What I see and what they claim to be is an "online entertainment portal" and the review is bylined and does not look so bad. Anyway, if everyone agrees all that there is is insufficient my !vote is K or at least R. Allow me to leave at that, thank you. (=Sorry in advance if I don't reply to any potential new comments.) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LinkedIn profile of GL's founder says he's into digital marketing, PR, Social Media, Branding etc. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not very moved by that information, to be honest. Again, allow me to leave it at that, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 05:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheen Vocational Training Institute[edit]

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

Clearly PROMO. Fails NCORP as well GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to NASCAR on television and radio. Owen× ☎ 05:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NASCAR broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, one is a dead page and three of those are about the announcers, not helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:15, 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. Owen× ☎ 05:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Legislative Analysis[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP, coverage in RS is limited to mere-mentions of its existence. FOX News has a substantial writeup [15], but I don't think they can be considered reliable for this topic. The fact that syndicated local news have seen fit to effectively reprint their press releases (e.g. [16], [17]) does not inspire further confidence. I'd want to see actual analysis of the group's history and work in multiple national-level publications (e.g. Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post) to substantiate NCORP here. signed, Rosguill talk 17:58, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electronix corporation[edit]

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

Purely promotional. Can we move it to the draft or delete? Tanhasahu (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to Delete, the company is no longer in business 76.192.65.129 (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Non-notable company. Fails WP:ORG. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. I've found one source, Tilly, Chris; Carré, Françoise J. (2017). Where bad jobs are better: Retail jobs across countries and companies. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. pp. 42, 62–63, 65–67, 94, 97, 108. ISBN 978-1-61044-870-3. which seems reasonable. Usually what we do for these older, poorly sourced articles where pretty much nobody would even know has been draftified is to reduce it to a stub of a few sentences, basically what can be verified to the sources and which tone would not be a problem, and then tagg it with the relevant Wikipedia:Maintenance tags. Would this be acceptable to the two of you, Tanhasahu and Sgubaldo? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have access to that book, but if that's the case, then sure. The only mentions in the books I can find are very brief. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't establish notability as defined as WP:ORG. Even doesn't pass WP:GNG. Deletion will be better. Tanhasahu (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm having trouble finding anything else, might bump it to ARS though to see if they have any more luck. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:42, 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 redirect‎ to Almighty Thor. Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thor (The Asylum)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG--coverage is limited to within the context of reviews of Almighty Thor. Cribbing a reception section out of snippets of reviews of that film that comment on the titular character borders on absurd. Restoring the redirect to Almighty Thor seems most appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Almighty Thor, the first movie this character appeared in. As described in the nomination, none of the sources are really about the character himself at all. They are general reviews or coverage of the films as a whole, without any kind of significant coverage specifically on the character that would warrant splitting it out into a separate article. On top of that, a number of these reviews are from websites that I am not sure would even qualify as being valid reliable sources. I honestly doubt this is going to be a very likely search, but as redirects are cheap, redirecting it to the main movie article would be fine. Rorshacma (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Almighty Thor; I'll note the sequel to that film has no article, but AGF that the first film should merit a single article. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Almighty Thor, per Rorshacma. Redirects are cheap and an WP:ATD. The article doesn't have enough WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Almighty Thor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Everett[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Elijah Everett (edit | talk | history | 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 existing references are limited to chess databases that verify a moderately high ELO, trivial mentions in broader coverage of major chess matches, and a link to the subject's page as a for-hire language teacher. Google and Google News searches do not support widespread coverage in any reliable sources and the subject does not hold any FIDE titles BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 17:13, 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! 22:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Republic of the Congo–Ukraine relations[edit]

Democratic Republic of the Congo–Ukraine relations (edit | talk | history | 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. Doesn't look like they even have official embassies. This info could easily go in Foreign relations of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and/or Foreign relations of Ukraine. JTtheOG (talk) 16:35, 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. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, contact me or WP:REFUND Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Edeh[edit]

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

Delete, article standing largely on non-existent and primary sources. Of the eight sources in the article, two are primary sources from the awards received by the subject while three sources (number 6- TheCable, 7-Sahara Reporters, and 8- Premium Times) are about an unrelated Tony Edeh (The Chairman, Eha-Amufu and Fulani Communities Peace and Reconciliation Committee) according to the sources 6, 7, and 8, reviewed. Supposing the Tony Edeh mentioned in those three articles are the subject of this article, he still falls below notability guidelines because he received only passing mentions. The only source that tends to count towards notability is the one from the Guardian (Nigeria) but that is not enough to establish minimum notability. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[20], [21].Otbest (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable business executive and wonder how this remained in this encyclopedia for this long. It does not come close to notability. Piscili (talk) 12:26, 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! 22:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venus International school[edit]

Venus International school (edit | talk | history | 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 cannot find anything online except the school's own website - a facebook page with limited information - an impressive YouTube promotional video - and listing in various 'school finder' websites. No indication of the roll of the school although there appear to be only 16 staff suggesting it is small. No third party references. Need to find third party information - or question notability. Newhaven lad (talk) 16:24, 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! 22:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Road 89 (Iran)[edit]

Road 89 (Iran) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. I cannot find any evidence that Road 89 actually exists. The Google Map between the purported termini does not show any road labels (where it does show others in the area. One of the two provided sources is a map that shows multiple labels on the route, none that match the Farsi script for 89. The other source appears to be about the paving of a road in Gowharan, Hormozgan, but it says nothing about Road 89. The Wikipedia article List of roads and highways in Iran has nothing on it. With the sources failing verification and no other sources to be found, even if it exists, it's certainly not notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Articles which are entirely unverifiable actively harm Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability and should be deleted in all cases. Another editor raised this issue on the article creator's talk page to no response. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we shouldn't keep articles roads that are debatable whether or not they even exist. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revera (event)[edit]

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

Unsourced with no notability per GNG or EVENT. Google search returned no reliable independent coverage on the event. Promotional tone with no denotable notability. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I couldn't find anything about it on the web except for Facebook posts. This topic doesn't seem notable at all; it appears to be promotional and fails to meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Grabup (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it appears to be promotional, fails WP:GNG or WP:N(E) ~~User:Spworld2 (talk) 2:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sources on the page and this page seems like promotion of an event held by student union of a college. WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources are provided, event do look like some promotion. Hookiq (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astronauts of Antiquity[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Astronauts of Antiquity (edit | talk | history | 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:BAND. Official website no longer exists, and band seems to have been inactive since ~2017. B3251 (talk) 15:53, 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. PR puffery and absurdites like this are not reliable sources, as analyzed below. Bishonen | tålk 18:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JOM Charity Award[edit]

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

Delete, non notable Award. Sources number 2 and 3 are same PR puffery published within a month of each other and the contents bear striking similarity and that cannot be taken as a coincidence. Source number 4 from The Sun (Nigeria) is a press release from the JOM Award itself but masked as a news story. Source number 5 from Vanguard (Nigeria) is very similar to sources number 2 and 3 in headlines and in the body and tone of the writing. The headline of the source number 5 says the JOM Award is one of the top 5 charity organisations in the UK but no single UK media outlet is cited in the article – a PR puffery at its best. All other sources cited are similar and unreliable due to their PR puffery LocomotiveEngine (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - having looked though the sources, each seem to be substantially written by the same person. They make ridiculous and sensational claims. I don’t know if they are paid plants in newspapers, but I do know that the article was created by a known paid sock.
Riposte97 (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- It has enough sources to meet notability for stand alone article.[22],[23],[24],

[25], [26], [27], [28]. Calyx2s (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, nothing has changed since the nomination and what you presented are sources that were in the article when it was nominated. Notability is NOT about the number of sources in an article but their reliability. The sources are PR advertorial puffery. They do not count for notability. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The best is to run a source assessment generation. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Nigerian Tribune, Vanguard, Daily Times Nigeria are all reliable and reputed newspapers of Nigeria. If we ignore a couple of references that reported based on the press releases, the article seems to have WP: SigCov. I go for Keep and develop!Davidindia (talk)
    Comment, your statement is not based on policy issues raised in this AFD because you have not pointed out a single source that informed your decision on this. It is very clear that the issue is about the PR articles not the news platforms where they are published. Please, take a moment to study what RS is all about before commenting in AFD as it is not about number of votes but the merit of policy arguments.LocomotiveEngine (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why shooting yourself on the leg, so Newspaper sources per WP:NGRS is not reliable?Calyx2s (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just as Safari Scribe and Davidindia mentioned there are some sources that are not PR . The above sources meet Notability except the one from PM News I feel might be PR.Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination analysis. It fails WP:GNG. This appears to be a case of undisclosed paid editing. The sources cited in this article are advertorial/PR material pretending to be independent secondary sources. Though this sources are from reliable independent media news organisations, the press articles are PR efforts. The creator of this page is likely to be working for a PR Firm. They currently have two of their articles in WP:AFD and the two of them use same media sources, the writing are similar and the authors are mostly same. It is not a coincidence that should be overlooked. Their promotional articles in AFD are Gbenga Adigun and JOM Charity Award. See these two different sources and their bylines from The Sun (Nigeria) cited in both pages [29] and [30] written by same person (John Mike). See these two sources in both pages from Daily Times (Nigeria) and take note of their bylines even though they are covering different beats [31] and [32] written by same person ( Ihesiulo Grace). Now see these two different sources from Leadership cited in both pages [33] and [34] written by same person (Christopher Odey). Also see these two different sources from the PM News cited in both pages [35] and [36] written by same person (Taiwo Okanlawon). It is safe to say that this editor and those commenting Keep are working for same PR firm. Closing admin, please, take note of these editors commenting keep, they are most likely to be working together. Piscili (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:My account was created 9 months ago and some of these publications were existing long before I join Wikipedia. Check my contribution on Wikipedia has been from a neutral perspective. I feel you and the nominator might be using this account to discredit the article because I could see the desperation to discredit it. Because he went ahead to report to the admin. And also nominated this article and the award so he won't be able to scale through with WP:ANYBIO

Piscili , face the issues instead of trying to discredit a credible publishing house. And your votes was strictly on the article the nominator nominated, that an eyebrows that you both are working together if not same editor. Because him (nominator) asking Administrator if he can remove sources on the article really tells the desperation. How can you remove a newspaper sources that are reliable per WP:NGRS?

The articles has potential of passing WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and certainly with WP:NACADEMIC as a fellow of a highly prestigious institute of learning.Calyx2s (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:The nominator looks so desperate instead of allowing the editors to access the sources themselves and votes.

Just as he was advised when he reported at the admin noticed board, to allow the editor to access it. The desperation is making it seem as if he has been paid for it to bring the article down... And the recent votes by the low inexperienced editor, is making it seem like a plan votes since the nominator is not achieving its aim, Those New editors account needs to be checked.Calyx2s (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against you and your spam articles and if the community decides to keep your WP:Spam articles I am fine with it. I saw the comment of the nominator at WP:ANI where they were instructed that the sources should not be removed so that other editors could assess them. I checked and found that the nominator had recently nominated three articles and commented on them. The two created by you have more issues because the sources used are from same media websites, same writers. Please defend this and stop attacking me. This is WP:AFD and everyone is allowed to comment. Are you trying to stop me from commenting in AFD? Piscili (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know you will curve your decision for coming to AFD based on his report on WP:ANI. It seems you are not ready for policy discussion, instead calling a newspaper publications spam, check the edit of the award history when an editor touches the contents I never try to reverse it because I have no conflict or whatsoever. I drop the stick here Calyx2s (talk) 06:52, 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. Fawning interviews, self-written self-praise such as this, and marketing-speak press releases are not reliable sources. Bishonen | tålk 18:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gbenga Adigun[edit]

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

Delete, the subject clearly fails minimum notability requirement. Article having a bunch of sponsored press releases masked as independent coverage of the subject. The first references from the Sun (Nigeria) is a clear sponsored post and that is evident in the headline and the body of the article presents a clear indication of PR puffery. The Second source from PM News clearly mirrors Wikipedia structure. The handler possibly used that to prove notability and game the system, and maybe a deeper check of the editor who created the page will reveal something. There are about three different articles from Daily Times (Nigeria), while one mirrors Wikipedia style and structure, the tone is clearly PR puffery, the other two articles from same source are on obscure awards. The reference number 8 from the sun is the subject’s own writeup. Source number 12 from Independent is a single mention of the subject. Almost all other sources bear resemblance of PR puffery LocomotiveEngine (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the very comprehensive nomination statement to which I have nothing to add. Mccapra (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. PRs/advertorials masquerading as independent coverage of the subject, even though these publications are reliable. I don't want to bother on source assessment on this. It is crystal clear by reading the pieces from these coverages. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He comfortable meet at least the minimum standards which is WP: BASIC. With the nominator assessment, Qualify individual might end up been deleted... On google he has major hits. See below

[37], [38], [39], [40], [41], Here he was listed by a notable Daily Times (Nigeria) newspapers among top 3 real estate developers [42] and several awards to prove his notability by major newspapers in Nigeria. And for WP:GNG same apply see [43], [44], [45],As a Fellow Institute of Consulting (FIC) and Fellow Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (FCIPD) he comfortably pass WP:NACADEMIC #3 [46].Calyx2s (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I tend to be on the side of keep, as I find a lot of editors nowadays rush to nominate AfDs. Unless, it is absolutely not possible, one should aim to keep the articles. This article has more than two reliable citations from reputed newspapers. I beg to disagree with a senior editor. The CEO Forum seems to be reliable as a reputed UN organisation attended the meet and collaborated with them. I feel the article meets the WP: GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Thanks! Davidindia (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment is not based on policy issues raised in this AFD because you have not pointed out a single source that informed your decision on this. Your statement itself says it all that you do not understand the issue of unreliable sources raised. It is very clear that the issue is about the PR articles not the news platforms where they are published. Please, take a moment to study what RS is all about before commenting in AFD as it is not about number of votes but the merit of policy arguments. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Calyx2s, All these sources listed are "PRs/advertorials masquerading as independent coverage of the subject, even though these publications are reliable" as stated by @Vanderwaalforces. These are same sources present in the article when it was nominated and nothing has changed since then. The first source you listed above is just a passing mention and everyday, people are invited to speak on certain issues in the media and that does not count for notability. The number 2 is nothing but a PR statement from either the subject of the article or award organisation itself. The number 3 is a statement or press release but assuming that is a reliable source, is about their business organisation that only give a passing mention to the subject of this article. Your sources numbers 4 and 5 are about an event his association organised which he moderated, several people spoke at the event and he received passing mention in one or two paragraphs. It appears that you deliberately repeated sources in the article and in this AFD to create impression of notability because you listed some sources twice and those sources would not be analysed twice. The Number 7 you listed above is 100% PR puffery and it is a clear indication that you do not have a proper understanding of what reliable source is all about. The number 8 counts towards notability but unfortunately it is not enough. Your number 9 is a complete PR packaging. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am skeptical by the nominator reasons, checking the date and year of publications by the publishing house, it has months and years intervals and most if not all have byline to show it independent from the subject. He meets at least the minimum standards which is WP: BASIC And the above reference by Calyx shows he is notable too as been a fellow of a highly recognized institute pass WP:NACADEMIC. 5, 6, 8 sources are ok to pass Notability they are significant, independent, Reliable (SIR). And on Source one by the Sun [47] highlighted by the nominator, I went deeper to check if he actually had the TVC News appearance the answer is yes, type TOPIC: AN INSIGHT ON HOW LOW AND MIDDLE CLASS CAN OWN SAFE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSES IN NIGERIA on YouTube you will see it on the TV Media YouTube channel. Shows the publication is verifiable .Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, article is saturated with advertorial/PR material, therefore it fails WP:GNG. Off all sources reviewed, none is a reliable source to support notability. Though the sources are from reliable secondary media sources widely cited in this encyclopedia, the press articles used in creating this page are all PR efforts. The creator of this page is likely to be working for a PR Firm. They currently have two of their articles in WP:AFD and the two of them use same media sources, the writing are similar and the authors are mostly same. It is not a coincidence that should be overlooked. Their promotional articles in AFD are Gbenga Adigun and JOM Charity Award. See these two different sources and their bylines from The Sun (Nigeria) cited in both pages [48] and [49] written by same person (John Mike). See these two sources in both pages from Daily Times (Nigeria) and take note of their bylines even though they are covering different beats [50] and [51] written by same person ( Ihesiulo Grace). Now see these two different sources from Leadership cited in both pages [52] and [53] written by same person (Christopher Odey). Also see these two different sources from the PM News cited in both pages [54] and [55] written by same person (Taiwo Okanlawon). It is safe to say that this editor and those commenting Keep are working for same PR firm or at best are sockpuppets. Closing admin, please, take note of these editors commenting keep, they are most likely to be working together. Piscili (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:My account was created 9 months ago and some of these publications were existing long before I join Wikipedia. Check my contribution on Wikipedia has been from a neutral perspective and not working for any PR agency. I feel you and the nominator might be using this account to discredit the article because I could see the desperation to discredit it. Because he went ahead to report to the admin. And also nominated this article and the award so he won't be able to scale through with WP:ANYBIO

Piscili , face the issues instead of trying to discredit a credible publishing house. And your 3 votes was strictly on the 3 article the nominator nominated, that an eyebrows that you both are working together if not same editor and it your first time voting at AFD. Because him/she (nominator) asking on Administrator board if he can remove sources on the article really tells the desperation. How can you remove a newspaper sources that are reliable per WP:NGRS? The article has potential of passing WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and certainly with WP:NACADEMIC as a fellow of a highly prestigious institute of learning. Calyx2s (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator sought to know at WP:ANI if there is any policy that supports removing PR spam sources from an article before nominating it for AFD or if PR spam articles such as yours could be removed after the nomination, and the nominator was instructed that the sources should not be removed while in AFD so other editors could assess them. I saw the ANI, and decided to check their AFD nominations and found the three they recently nominated. I commented on all three because those articles have to go. Are you also the creator of the third spam article? My comments were based on my own little experience. Please respond to the issue of the questionable sources. In your other promotional article (JOM Charity Award), Riposte97 commented "that having looked though the sources, each seem to be substantially written by the same person". I am not the only editor who has spotted these PR spams. But why are you taking it personal? At this point, I urge you to declare your interests in the two WP:Spams. A good faith editor would be quiet and learn from the analysis of the sources but your continuous defense of the spams is what I can't understand. I am not here to fight but to contribute out of my own little understanding. If the community decides to keep your spam articles I have nothing to lose. Warm regards. Piscili (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In your word and interpreting for the nominator The nominator sought to know at WP:ANI if there is any policy that supports removing PR spam sources you both are probably working together. Read his comment over there, he knows the implications now you are defending him instead of you to face the issues.

I know you will curve your decision for coming to AFD based on his report on WP:ANI. It seems you are not ready for policy discussion, instead calling a newspaper publications spam, check the edit of the award history when an editor touches the contents I never try to reverse it because I have no conflict or whatsoever. I drop the stick here Calyx2s (talk) 06:52, 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 Anjum Shahzad#Television. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idiot (TV series)[edit]

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

This TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this is not enough to meet GNG which require sig/in-depth coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:01, 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 Gresham, Oregon#Parks and recreation. Creator is okay with this, no need to drag out an AFD. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Park[edit]

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

Thom Park is relatively small (5 acres) and is one of many in Gresham (33 listed on the town website for a population of 110,000). There is nothing obviously notable about it. Newhaven lad (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Copied from a (misplaced) TFD notice, Special:Diff/1223786218. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newhaven lad@Primefac Page creator here. I was confused by the templates for deletion discussion, but just redirect to Gresham,_Oregon#Parks_and_recreation. Not worried about it. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:07, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Armătura Zalău[edit]

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

Despite a large addition, it remains mainly unsourced. Existing sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV, so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am on the fence on this article too. I would like to see more sources, is there no Romania wiki page for this club? Govvy (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The situation is a bit sad. The club is 100% notable, but User:AdrianCioran can't help but engage in move-warring, and doesn't understand basic Wikipedia policies or the deletion process. Look at the article history: User:Florin1977 tried to keep it in draft space with the edit summary "do not publish yet". AdrianCioran edited disruptively. Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I'd accept draftify as WP:ATD and that would be community consensus that would enable limited, but escalating, blocks on Adrian. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I support such action. Weak understanding of how Wikipedia works and hardly any communication - I'm noting a message written in Romanian on his talk page half a year ago, which translates to: "Don't create pages if you don't know how, because the moderators will delete them". Geschichte (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – Same situation than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CS Auxerre Lugoj. Svartner (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drafify - as above, not currently notable, but might be in future. GiantSnowman 18:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable even though their successful period was pre-internet, can even find recent articles such as [56]. SportingFlyer T·C 05:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: A pretty significant football club with some sourcing and notability, but I'd like to see something better than that with more reliable sourcing. HarukaAmaranth 春香 13:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We shouldn't be in the habit of draftifying notable articles even if the sourcing isn't great. This already has six sources. SportingFlyer T·C 16:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/Draftify: Notable, even though sources may not be readily available online.Anonimu (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Virtually certain to be notable. There appear to be nearly 10,000 results on newspaper archive Arcanum. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:23, 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 merge‎ to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps. ✗plicit 14:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. 675 (The Rifles) Squadron AAC[edit]

No. 675 (The Rifles) Squadron AAC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient references to prove notability. It is a small, company-sized unit. PercyPigUK (talk) 13:36, 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. ✗plicit 12:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Allum[edit]

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

Couldn't find significant coverage of him. I searched on newspapers.com for his name as well as "Albert Allum" and "Albie Allum" but no sigcov was found. Dougal18 (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liaison Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International[edit]

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

Created in 2003, this article has been a perma-stub for over two decades and provides little-to-no real information about the organization; it only appears to have one section that is at all notable. The only citation in this article is an obituary written by the organization itself. Looking through Google Scholar, there are absolutely zero sources on this in either Spanish or English. It not only doesn't have significant coverage, it doesn't seem to have any real coverage at all! Grnrchst (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Workers' Unity – Fourth International[edit]

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

This article has been tagged as lacking reliable sources since 2007. On a search for some, I only managed to find two books that even mention this organization: Contemporary Trotskyism and The Twilight of World Trotskyism, both by John Kelly. Neither book provides any substantial detail; most of the mentions are within long lists of Trotskyist internationals, with the only real information being that some of the organization's affiliate sections broke away from it following its formation. As far as I can tell, most of the articles that link to this article are also lists of Trotskyist internationals. It only has one notable section, its Argentine one. I don't think every obscure Trotskyist international needs a dedicated article, and given the complete dearth of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, I think this could safely be deleted or redirected to Socialist Left (Argentina). Grnrchst (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As original author I have no objections to deletion. Secretlondon (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per above. Yue🌙 05:53, 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. While none of the Keep !votes was able to present a coherent, P&G-based argument, after three weeks, there was still no support for deletion. Owen× ☎ 05:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hum News[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references on the page and i cannot locate any online that could be used to show notability. Appears to be one of many pages here to promote Hum Networks. Redirect to Hum Network could be an option as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the !vote although I find it highly suspicious. Regardless, you have just proven why this does not meet notability guidelines. Every single reference you provided falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and is NOT considered reliable. There is also no inherent notability for it being "one of the very few news channels that avoids sensationalism." Your arguments are more of WP:ILIKEIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, retain it for now; while this article lacks references, it's imperative to enhance it. Considering it's from a prominent news channel, deletion seems unwarranted.
Crosji (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out the policy based reason to keep the page? Keeping it because it is from a "prominent news channel" would be fine assuming the sources are there to support the assertion of notability. Unfortunately, they are not. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP Sincerely believe this article is worth keeping because it's one of the major TV news channels in Pakistan. Although I understand it was nominated here because it was previously unreferenced. Took 4 of the above best newspaper references shown above, archived them and added them to the above article. Passes WP:GNG now...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of those references show notability. This is about a correspondent, not the news channel. This is an announcement about an even that was organized by Hum Network Limited, NOT the news network. This and This are both NEWSORGINDIA and even if they were not, they would be considered WP:ROUTINE.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this was not nominated because "it was previously unreferenced." Please do not misquote me. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing administrator All of a sudden most reliable newspapers from Pakistan are being SLAPPED with the label NEWSORGINDIA on this AfD forum and accused of paid editing. Where is the evidence that they are!!! I strongly urge the closing administrator to take a look at the article itself to form an opinion...Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't all of a sudden. NEWSORGINDIA has been in place for a while. You are also asking for a WP:SUPERVOTE instead of presenting references that are reliable. I am wondering why you brought up UPE though since I have made no mention of it here. Again, you seem to misquote me. Please stop. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's focus on the Hum News article which is the subject here. All the references are reliable at the article despite anyone's personal assumption and assertion that they are not. Without any evidence for NEWSORGINDIA here, we are all encouraged to 'assume good faith' by Wikipedia. It would be a waste of time for the nominator and I to engage in personal back and forth debate here...Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't focused on anything but until I read you misquoting me and saying I made an accusation which was not made. So, yes, let's focus on the "reliable" references here. Source assessment below. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source assessment - Reviewing the sources on the page and those presented in AfD, they still do not show notability based on my assessment:--CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dawn, falls under NEWSORGINDIA. No byline and clear reprint of a press release – “The Hum Network Limited has announced……”
Profit, also NEWSORGINDIA. No byline and also a reprint of a press release. Notice it was posted within one day of the reference above which indicates churnalism based on an announcement from the parent network.
Daily Pakistan, also NEWSORGINDIA but let’s assume that it is reliable for a minute. It is an article that talks about television ratings of many networks and only has Hum News on the list with its ratings. Being included in a list is not significant coverage.
PM AWARD, promotional blog and the reference isn’t even live anymore (used the archive link).
Dawn, While Hum News is in the title, this is NOT about Hum News, it is about the parent company. It doesn’t even mention Hum News. It is related to this article about a takeover of the parent and even that article only mentions Hum News as being a part of the parent.
Dawn, Not sure why this was presented in the AfD as significant coverage. It is about a person who gave an interview on the network and not about the network itself. Brief mention and only verifies it exists. Verifiability is not notability.
Dawn, mentions Hum News in the caption only. Article is about someone who gave an interview on the network. Brief mention (if that) and not significant coverage.
So far we both are giving our views back and forth. That's why I said earlier above to let a neutral closing administrator look at the article itself...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators weigh the strength of arguments that use policy based reasoning to vote. They do not review the page and make a supervote. My vote and comments are not my "views" or "personal assumption and assertion." You stated "Without any evidence for NEWSORGINDIA here, we are all encouraged to 'assume good faith'." I simply provided that evidence above based on your comment. Are you able to point out which one of those references I listed can be used towards notability? Or, if you can provide alternatives I would be happy to review and withdraw the nomination if they do show it. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:25, 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 merge‎ to East Midlands Railway. Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EMR Regional[edit]

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

I can't see that there's any coverage of this line of services that is distinct from East Midlands Railway, nor do I think this is a good candidate for a WP:CFORK. The only additional content that exists here is a WP:DIRECTORY of every route this provider operates on. BrigadierG (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and United Kingdom. BrigadierG (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coverage of EMR Regional relates to its plans to refurbish its rolling stock, which seems to be smaller and older than that used by EMR Intercity. I found several references for refurbishment and added them to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the main scope of the page is to describe the routes its operating on. Because An article that is only about refurbishments of something is almost never allowed and can be placed on the relevant part of the article instead. Plus it is not titled refurbishment of the EMR fleet. It seems as though EMR are either brand new trains (class 810, due to enter within 12 months), sourcing newer trains (class 170, built 1998-2005) or in the process of refurbishment after it withdrew its HSTs, 153s, 156s and even the 180s. JuniperChill (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    not only that, but please also note WP:REFBOMB. No more than three sources per sentence, plus I am not sure about the reliability of these sources. JuniperChill (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > Actually, the main scope of the page is to describe the routes its operating on.
    Have you been familiar with the discourse surrounding similar subjects such as lists of airline destinations? I'm really loathe to have more of these kinds of big piles of information on Wikipedia without further context? There's moderate consensus (albeit several years old) that these things are generally not good bases for articles. BrigadierG (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are just reprints of press releases - replacing some of your trains is just a normal run-of-the-mill activity when you operate a train line. I'm not contesting that the operator itself is notable, just the idea that its two train services need separate articles of their own. See WP:ROTM BrigadierG (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Selective merge to East Midlands Railway. This article is little more than a timetable at present without any justification for being split from the East Midlands Railway article. Eastmain refbombing with press releases actually makes me more convinced this isn't a notable topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect or Selective merge with East Midlands Railway, this article seems to be copied/duplicated from that article. Any changes of rolling stock can easily be under headings in the table on the main article. Should the EMR article get long in the future, a split can be raised then. The refurbishment of trains is not exactly a notable reason for a separate article, if it were more than just a sub-brand, like a division or another company, then maybe the situation would be different. Otherwise the refurbishment of some trains can be largely just one sentence at EMR, as it is largely a minor routine event for train operators. DankJae 19:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Selective merge with East Midlands Railway - as already mentioned above, the article as it is is nothing more than a list of routes with little additional content; nothing that would be out of place in the main EMR article. Danners430 (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - EMR Connect has also been created, are they both in a similar situation? As they're both sub-brands, seems odd to delete one and allow another. DankJae 21:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally forgot I created that, having been sat around for ~10 weeks waiting to be accepted/declined. The reviewer (please do not tag) seems not to understand that EMR Connect is a subbrand of East Midlands Railway and the fact that EMR Regional is under discussion. I would have expected a decline stating that this should be placed in the main EMR article instead for these two reasons.
    Also, not sure why Great Northern ended up, along with Island Line (brand), being the subbrands of Govia Thameslink Railway and South Western Railway respectively. (This may not be an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF but hey). JuniperChill (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JuniperChill, the Island Line and GN have more history of its own to be separate, should these EMR brands have more developments distinct from EMR then they can have articles in the future. But right now they're just service timetables. The EMR brands are very recent, and their articles aren't developed enough to prove they're independently notable right now. Of course, you or another editor could have another go should there be more information in the future if these brands become more distinct and/or the EMR article gets too long. DankJae 21:56, 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 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 12:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GSSS Kot Beja[edit]

GSSS Kot Beja (edit | talk | history | 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 out any information about the school. The website is sparse and does not appear to have been updated since 2016. Most of the wiki page is copied from the school website. No other online references in English that I can find. There may of course be notable info about the school in other languages. Newhaven lad (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dauwa Ahir[edit]

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

Article based on unreliable sources that only make passing mention of the subject.Ratnahastin (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 15 of 16 sources are poor, unreliable and WP:RAJ era. One source is reliable by Ravindra K. Jain, a former Professor of Sociology from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India, but this too has no coverage on "Dauwa Ahirs" from the link given. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Notability is missing. Agletarang (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails general parameters for a Wikipedia page. Based Kashmiri TALK 09:59, 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. There was consensus that this topic has received sustained, significant coverage in reliable sources. One delete !vote effectively called to WP:TNT the article because it "seems to fall short of the expected encyclopedic depth and quality", but no consensus developed for that option. The other delete !vote was a conclusory WP:JNN. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan audio leaks controversy[edit]

Pakistan audio leaks controversy (edit | talk | history | 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:SINGLEEVENT. This fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't about a single event, and coverage has been ongoing for months and months at this point (see here, here, and here). The article needs an update, but as usual, AfD isn't clean-up. Cortador (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this article discusses audio leaks involving Pakistan's prime ministers, but the sources you provided doesn't pertain to prime ministers. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article starts with the sentence "The Pakistan audio leaks controversy stems from several leaked audio conversations involving Pakistan's prime minister Shehbaz Sharif and former prime minister Imran Khan among others." Emphasis mine. The second article talks about "the recent audio leaks involving politicians, judges, and their relatives", confirming that sources treat the audio leaks controversy as one event, whether or not a given leak featuring a (former) prime minister or not. Cortador (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the topic has indeed received extended coverage over a significant period, the accumulation of sources does not inherently justify the retention of an article. The core issue pertains to notability and whether the subject matter has sustained coverage that adds substantial information. The main concern is the notability and consistent, in-depth coverage. The provided references don’t seem to enhance the topic’s comprehension. While it’s true that the AfD isn’t just for clean-up, it does allow for evaluating an article’s significance. In this instance, the article seems to fall short of the expected encyclopedic depth and quality.  samee  converse  02:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a delete but you really should copyedit your generated tokens from an AI prompt. Recent ChatGPT models are trained on guest post spam and they will obvously spill out crap like this - avoid it all cost or you will loose your reputation [63]. If you still want to use chatbot then use the advanced model of Claude instead. At least it is objective and concise like Wikipedia. 111.119.37.78 (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability. Also lack of depth. Wikibear47 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would like to point out that WP:SINGLEEVENT (cited in the nomination) explicitly doesn't apply here as that is for articles about people, not articles about events. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like this should procedurally closed then for lack of a valid reason for deletion. Cortador (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's allow the AfD to run its course. As Samee pointed out, the primary concern still revolves around WP:N and consistent, in-depth coverage as demanded per WP:GNG. Lets not forget WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:15, 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]

Samee has not edited since 2 May. Possibly they received a software upgrade that was unsuccessful. Thincat (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been contacted (not by Samee) on email about this AFD but if I have any remarks I'll leave them here. Thincat (talk) 09:43, 14 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, CycloneYoris talk! 10:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: There appears to be ongoing coverage of the event into 2024 [64] as an example, but I'm not sure which sources from the geographical area are considered RS. Dawn has coverage about it, which I think is a RS [65]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 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! 03:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Wreck in a Gale[edit]

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

No evidence that this 43-second film is notable, hasn't received significant attention. No good redirect target found. Fram (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:NFILM as I mentioned in my edit summary when I "PROD-conned" it. See the guideline. Shown at festival more than 5 years after production. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That line in NFILM gives only a presumption which needs to be supported by reliable sources indicating that it meets WP:GNG. A screening on a niche festival which shows more than 500 such rediscoveries each year is hardly a clear indication of importance, more of being a curio of passing interest. Fram (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for sharing your opinion. I'll stand by my Keep, if you allow me, as I find this short clearly does meet the inclusionary criteria (not only a "line"), which is quite clear. It also proves, btw, that this short has received the "significant attention" you mentioned in your rationale. What you call a "niche festival" has indeed been a very important film event for almost 40 years. You are free to call this "a curio of passing interest" but the film has been screened at a very notable festival (much) more than 5 years after its production and that is, I'm afraid, a fact. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. N:FILM says "meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film," and that is true here, where there are no reliable sources to describe the notability of this film beyond its mere existence. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:27, 29 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! 11:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. The Cinema Ritrovato program included 17 different works. The idea that coverage of it would trickle down to this 43-second actuality film is not a reasonable interpretation of WP:NFILM. hinnk (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In another ongoing discussion (4 1900 short films were AfDd at the same time) @Carnival200 and Hyperbolick: you mentioned "Maybe merge all these old ones into 1900 in film?" as a good idea. I am wondering if you had this film in mind too. Although I stand by my K !vote, I am not opposed to the idea of a redirect; some of the refs can be added there and it seems like an acceptable ATD. 17:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - found in a few catalogues and appears to have been shown in some minor festivals. Unless someone has shown the context of why this film is important in the history of British cinema, I don't see how it meets the inclusion criteria. JMWt (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG, name mentions are not WP:SIGCOV and nothing found that meets WP:SIRS. Ping me if sources with SIGCOV are found.  // Timothy :: talk  14:40, 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! 06:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Water Boatman[edit]

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

Short horror film recently tagged for notability. Only sources are brief announcements in Indiegogo/Dread Central (and IMDb) and https://filmfreeway.com/thewaterboatman. Could be redirected to Marcus Bentley if one really thinks an WP:ATD is better. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:59, 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! 06:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Descending solid coalitions[edit]

Descending solid coalitions (edit | talk | history | 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 term "descending solid coalitions" is apparently missing in both Google Books and Google scholar, which is highly irregular for a valid scientific term. The article refers to a single source that is also missing the term. PROD was reverted. The alternate name, "Descending Acquiescing Coalitions", apparently has no independent WP:SIGCOV, see discussion at Talk:Descending solid coalitions#Proposed deletion. Викидим (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I noted, additional sources use many closely-related terms, like "Solid coalitions", "Proportionality for Solid Coalitions", etc. The article is useful in general discussions of voting systems because it has a fairly unique set of properties like later-no-harm and participation, which makes it useful pedagogically (in articles discussing these criteria). –Sincerely, A Lime 21:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Have to agree with the reasons given here. I also cannot find any notable mentions except for some niche forums of this method, so deletions seems like the right step.
Jannikp97 (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This pretty clearly fails WP:GNG. There's some discussion of it on web forums, but it doesn't appear to have garnered any sort of significant attention in reliable sources at this point. SportingFlyer T·C 23:07, 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 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! 05:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristbergs IF[edit]

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

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 5th tier. (They are now on the 8th.) Geschichte (talk) 07:39, 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! 05:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FK Bosna 92 Örebro[edit]

FK Bosna 92 Örebro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 5th tier. (They are now on the 6th.) Geschichte (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Roller skiing#Nordic blading. Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic cross skating[edit]

Nordic cross skating (edit | talk | history | 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 that it meets WP:N; I'm not sure any good merge/redirect targets exist, and as this is wholly unsourced, merging wouldn't necessarily be helpful. Boleyn (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 12:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Around the world (card game)[edit]

Around the world (card game) (edit | talk | history | 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 Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 11:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Land mine (drinking game).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 12:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laith Saad Abdullah[edit]

Laith Saad Abdullah (edit | talk | history | 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 of notability, no good independent sources about him, plus COI concerns. Fram (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Given his novels and play I think he may possibly be notable under WP:AUTHOR but I can’t search for reviews in Arabic without the original names of his works. It’s unfortunate when editors rush to create an en.wiki article when there isn’t yet one in the mother language. Mccapra (talk) 07:00, 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! 03:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Thorpe Priestley[edit]

Philip Thorpe Priestley (edit | talk | history | 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:SIGCOV. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years, never ref'd correctly. May pass WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creepTalk 09:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No hits at all in Jstor, Gscholar, Gnews. I don't think this scientist is hitting notability criteria here, with a lack of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 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! 02:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Harris (figure skater)[edit]

Lee Harris (figure skater) (edit | talk | history | 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; not sure whether the rest qualifies as notable. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 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 redirect‎ to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska. Owen× ☎ 06:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Tshibaka[edit]

Kelly Tshibaka (edit | talk | history | 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 Talk:Kelly Tshibaka#Notability 2, I do not believe this unsuccessful political candidate is notable. Despite being well sourced at a casual glance, most of the 30+ references are related to the election, and in many cases focus on the eventual winner, with Tshibaka only mentioned as an opponent. Even if this was a particularly contentious or notable election, WP:ONEEVENT would dictate the content is better merged into the election article. Of the non-election references, only one is actually about the subject (appointment to Commissioner's office). The rest just have trivial mentions where the subject has been quoted as a government official in relation to the primary topic. We don't have articles for every local government commissioner just because they occasionally get quoted in Press (and indeed, neither her predecessors nor successors have articles). This article was created around the time of the election campaign and seems like it was probably created as part of the campaign. There is no suggestion of notability prior to subject's unsuccessful election campaign. Fails WP:Politician (not a politician), WP:Bio and WP:Sustained. Hemmers (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Law, and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. There’s plenty here, and I just added a new section about her career following campaign. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "there's plenty there" doesn't confer notability. I can write full length articles going into excruciating detail about local politics using local news. I can write articles about local sports clubs using 150years of local media reporting of results and prize-givings. Literally hundreds of references. There's plenty there... but that doesn't mean those people or organisations meet GNG. And that's the thing. There isn't that much there. It's overwhelmingly WP:ONEEVENT about her unsuccessful election campaign, or else trivial mentions. Hemmers (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She's not really notable outside her campaign loss, can be redirected to the campaign page. The new section is just a sentence that would not grant her notability if she hadn't run. SportingFlyer T·C 04:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Misunderstanding of WP:NPOL: unelected candidates can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline (meaning: has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists). No part of the guideline counts only non-election references; that would be an unreasonable standard for a politician. I see significant coverage of her life in long features from the Anchorage Daily News, Juneau Empire, The New Yorker (contains lots of profile), etc. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Plus, she has held state/province–wide office, as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth noting though that literally none of the other Commissioners who held that appointment (not elected office) have an article. This is not to say it can't contribute to notability, but we need rather more than "former public servant who controversially but unsuccessfully ran for office" to clear GNG. Hemmers (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I quite agree that an unsuccessful candidtae can meet GNG. I just don't believe Tshibaka does! In my view, the issue here is that her personal (non-)notability is being conflated with a contentious race and internal conflict in the Republican Party. It's totally reasonable that her name would be mentioned in relation to that issue, but it doesn't get her over the fence of notability herself IMO.
    Those three features are explicitly in relation to the election race, not profiling her as a notable individual in her own right or on the merits of her career. This gives us an issue of WP:SUSTAINED. She doesn't pass WP:POL cleanly, so if we fall back to GNG, we need significant sustained coverage. But the coverage is all WP:ONEEVENT.
    Specifically:
    • Juneau Empire "This is the first in a three-part series of interviews with U.S. Senate candidates." We don't have an article for Pat Chesbro who was similarly profiled as a fellow candidate. Should we? Literally every candidate who stands for public office will get a local news profile. That doesn't not pass GNG on it's own.
    • The making of a U.S. Senate candidate: Kelly Tshibaka "Second of three stories on candidates for U.S. Senate in Alaska in the Nov. 8 general election." Same issue. She ran, there was some local coverage. So what? This is well into WP:ONEEVENT territory.
    • The New Yorker This is the best of the lot since it's not an Alaskan paper - national interest starts to hint at notability. Except the article isn't about her - the title is literally "Alaska’s G.O.P. Proxy War". Tshibaka isn't notable - the story is that the GOP were in a state of internal conflict and there's a split in the party between moderate conservatives and a growing alt-right movement.
    If Tshibaka is truly notable in her own right then I would like to see at least one in-depth profile that is not from the election - some example of sustained coverage where an independent journalist has decided "This person is someone worth spending some time on in their own right", but I haven't managed to spot such an article. Given that the election race was contentious (Alaska & National Republicans falling out) and received unusual attention because of that, the relevant material would surely be better MERGED into 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska and this article DELETED or REDIRECTED. Hemmers (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead of this BLP plainly shows that she’s notable even without being the runner-up in a close U.S. Senate race: “Kelly Chaundel Tshibaka (/ʃɪˈbɑːkə/ shib-AH-kə; born September 5, 1979)[1][2][3] is an American attorney who served in the federal government from 2002 to 2019 in several inspector general offices. Upon moving back to her home state of Alaska in 2019, she served for two years as the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration until 2021. Tshibaka was a Republican candidate for the United States Senate in the 2022 election.[4] She lost to the incumbent, Republican Lisa Murkowski, by about seven percentage points.[5][6] Thereafter, she became a leading opponent of ranked-choice voting in Alaska, as well as head of the Trump 2024 campaign in that state.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unclear what your purpose is in quoting the entire lead. The other holders of those federal government posts do not have articles. Should they? If anything, that's an argument against her notability. Pretty much every political candidate has a pre-politics career. Working in govt is no more notable than working in the private sector. Is Tshibaka's work in government considered more notable that Pat Chesbro's career in teaching?
    As I have stated, we need some evidence of significant, sustained coverage outside of the election to show this article goes beyond WP:ONEEVENT. A couple of trivial mentions in articles relating to strikes? That's not GNG.
    As for this statement: The lead of this BLP plainly shows that she’s notable even without being the runner-up in a close U.S. Senate race. I'm afraid this is plainly false. The article was created when she ran for office - not when she was commissioner. None of the other commissioners have articles or are considered notable. Even if she is notable now (which is dubious), she was definitely not notable prior to her campaign. Her latest work against ranked voting may make her notable WP:LAGGING, but I'm still on the fence whether she's there yet. Anyone can start a political lobby group on paper and shove out some press releases. Still doesn't make them notable. Hemmers (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hemmers (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m glad you’re on the fence now. Notice that Pat Chesbro was a relatively minor candidate, she got about 10% of the vote compared to 43% for Tshibaka. Even if Tshibaka had not been runner-up in a statewide election, hadn’t campaigned against ranked choice voting, and hadn’t been put in charge of a statewide presidential campaign, still being commissioner of Alaska’s Department of Administration for two years could be enough. See the people listed at Ministry of Public Administration (Croatia). If anyone is still unsure about notability here, take a look at the list of references. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Croatia analogy doesn't make any sense as that is a ministry, and not all of those people even have articles. It's very simple: she would not have had an article created on her if she had not run for office, and candidates are rarely notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A ministry is the same thing as a department. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really on the fence. She's not dead - consequently I'm open to the idea she will be deemed notable in future (WP:LAGGING). But I don't think she's there yet. This is not a high bar. I could also be notable in the future. So could you.
    Her commisionership is absolutely not notable. AFAIK she wasn't involved in any notable reforms/revolutions or scandals during that time. So what would make her two years in office any more notable that any other Commissioner (she would be the first to have an article)?
    All I'm asking is "What makes Tshibaka notable, given that unsuccessful candidates generally aren't considered notable?"
    WP:NPOL allows that some unsuccessful candidates may be notable. But I keep being bombarded with "Here's coverage during the election, which incidentally, the other (non-notable) candidates got too", which doesn't really help! What is the "extra" that gets Tshibaka over the line?
    Your list of Croatian officials is misplaced - those individuals are (as far as I can tell) elected politicians - not employees of the ministry or civil/public servants. As we all well know, Tshibaka is not - and has never been - an elected representative. That's why we're having this discussion. Hemmers (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Death would be a rather high bar for notability (although such a bar would probably improve Wikipedia). NPOL is unambiguous: “The following are presumed to be notable: [1] Politicians and judges who have held … state/province–wide office…. [2] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage…. [3] people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.” Tshibaka qualifies under all three of these, though only one is needed. Her notability is also a lot more substantial than unelected officials like Richard K. Allen, Arsen Bauk, and Dubravka Jurlina Alibegović. This is my last comment here, let’s see if other Wikipedians would like to weigh in. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Regarding [3], WP:GNG says, “A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” The references in this BLP obviously satisfy this requirement. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.P.S. Just came across List of third-party and independent performances in United States Senate elections. You can see dozens of BLPs listed there for losing candidates who have a lot less notability in reliable sources than the person we’re discussing. Also, people here who support a redirect are not suggesting moving this article’s content, which violates WP:PRESERVE. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's still a disconnect to me in asking to show that a political candidate is notable without using sources about her political candidacy—again, all NPOL asks for is multiple news feature articles, which is plainly not something every candidate gets; your emphasis on in her own right is misdirected. I hate to bring up WP:OSE, but We don't have an article for Pat Chesbro is textbook. Your point about WP:SUSTAINED/WP:BLP1E coverage rules out only people likely to remain ... a low-profile individual, which she is not. And as for the [New Yorker] article isn't about her, WP:SIGCOV means more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All I am asking is: "What makes Tshibaka notable, given that unsuccessful candidates generally aren't considered notable?"
    All I have received in response is "Here's a bunch of coverage during the election, which incidentally, the other candidates got too".
    Please let's leave individual sources & profiles out of this and let's focus on this one question which I have now asked twice and received no response to. Her candidacy is NOT on it's own notable. Otherwise we would be doing articles for EVERY candidate (yes Chesbro, but also EVERY candidate for EVERY Senate/House seat), and we patently don't do that. So this is not WP:OSE. This is asking why Tshibaka is the exception to the rule. The occasional unsuccessful candidate who tips the scales into notability. Yes - WP:NPOL allows that. Why does Tshibaka qualify for that? What else has she got going for her? Hemmers (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your position, and yes, the best sources I've found come from the election. But your standard doesn't seem to be in line with our guidelines; let's leave individual sources & profiles out of this is rarely the way to go about determining notability. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But your standard doesn't seem to be in line with our guidelines
    It certainly is. Our guidelines (WP:NPOL) are that an unsuccessful candidate may be notable, but this is exceptional or predicated on independent notability (e.g. Donald Trump was notable before he ran for office. George W. Bush was previously Governor of Texas, etc). Tshibaka is not notable. She doesn't pass NPOL and she doesn't (as far as I can tell) pass WP:ANYBIO either. No Commissioner before or since has been deemed notable. This is not WP:OSE. It's possible that she is notable... but notability must be clearly shown. What makes her exceptional? I have asked repeatedly for someone to put forward some suggestion as to why she is notable over and above her unsuccessful election campaign. Nobody is able to do so.
    So in what way am I out of step with the guidelines?
    I'll be honest, I almost feel a bit gaslit at this point.
    All I want is for someone voting 'Keep' to answer:
    What has she done that is objectively and clearly notable?
    She is not unique or special for being a government official who later ran for office. And her government career was undistinguished - no major scandals/reforms/projects.
    Nobody can tell me what the 'extra' is that gets her over the line. That's all I want to know.
    I'll be leaving this conversation and Afd here because people seem to be more interested in citing policy (WP:NOTBURO) than answering the very simple and reasonable question of "How does she meet GNG?", and I don't want to start accusing people of poor faith. I've made my points so continuing to go round in circles seems unproductive. Hemmers (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska. The article does not meet GNG, as her notability comes only from that election. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska. The sourcing is because of her campaign, she is not independently notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Probably not meeting political notability, but we have enough sourcing as a civil servant to !keep. The USA Today and AP articles are about her. Not really notable for one thing, but many different things together, if that makes sense. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > we have enough sourcing as a civil servant to !keep
    Is that notable though? Does an unremarkable period as a Commissioner qualify as notable? It hasn't for other commissioners. Maybe she's notable but she would be the exception. Most civil servants are not notable unless they oversee some major scandal, reform or event. The sources on her government career are Wikipedia:Trivial mentions relating to strikes and such. They're one-liners of "the commissioner said", not articles about Tshibaka. Hemmers (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per previous arguments. Coverage of Tshibaka as a commissioner almost entirely consists of passing mentions. No evidence of notability, especially now that she's lost her campaign. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I suppose keeping the page would be suitable as well, but as has already been discussed, the insufficiently non-election related sourcing causes me to interpret the page as one relevant to the broader public more for election notability purposes than as the civil servant she also is. The page may also justifiably be kept as the length of the encyclopedically relevant body of text already embedded into the article meets Wikipedia's standards, not to mention how there is an overall mixed attitude by the users in this debate on the subject's broader political notability (ex. lack of consensus on the article's future potential); some are right when suggesting that the article provides just enough sufficient information on this candidate per the extent of the coverage not normally witnessed in other instances. There is a big downside to this, however: it's tough to say when enough becomes enough, and as such I believe redirecting this page - while keeping would suffice - serves as the better option in this instance. TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still see a division here between editors arguing to Keep and those advocating a Redirect. Based on past AFDs, I'm leaning Redirect but thought I'd relist this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with the redirect if it goes that way. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article does cover some info about Tshibaka outside the election, it's not that bad in terms of sourcing and per Hameltion. Just because she lost an election doesn't make her any less notable if the article is well sourced. Plus, she appears to be active post-election via activism against rank-choice voting and being chair of Trump's Alaska campaign. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska. I’ll support the group consensus but feel strongly that she does not have the necessary notability in her own right to merit her own article. I’ve edited thousands of Wiki pages for federal political candidates and officeholders, and the difference here is she: a) was unsuccessful and thus did not serve in the office that she sought, and b) she has not yet achieved a significant level of notability in business, politics, education, or other ways one would qualify for a WP:BLP article. Running an unsuccessful race is not enough for her to qualify on her own, but her name should certainly redirect to the 2022 election article about the campaign in which she was a candidate. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska as a usual an appropriate outcome for candidates running for federal office in the United States. I also believe that some of the veriable information can be added to the page about the election. --Enos733 (talk) 15:29, 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. ✗plicit 06:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gandgarh[edit]

Battle of Gandgarh (edit | talk | history | 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 the sources are unreliable and relies heavily on WP:Raj sources. The page requires deletion.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as there's no significant coverage and notability in new and RS sources. Based Kashmiri (talk) 09:28, 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. ✗plicit 06:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bannu[edit]

Battle of Bannu (edit | talk | history | 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 the page is littered with various passages which are not correctly cited and the references cited are inaccurate, and the page itself requires deletion.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete another South Asian battle article which lacks notability and RS. Based Kashmiri (talk) 09:30, 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Maria de Roumanie[edit]

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

Wife of an ex-king’s grandson, member of a royal house deposed in 1947, 70 years before she joined. Achievements: organizing events, getting married, having two children, attending a baptism, two funerals and a wine festival. Biruitorul Talk 05:49, 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 Dev (singer). ✗plicit 05:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fireball (Dev song)[edit]

Fireball (Dev 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)

No sources to prove notability for this lonely single. Despite being converted into a redirect years ago, it was still reinstated soon after. Testeraccount101 (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dev (singer): Found no reliable coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prizren Front[edit]

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

Redundant copy of already existing articles: Battle of Vërrin, Battle of Paštrik, and Prizren incident (1999). The entire article is about these events and content was directly copy-pasted directly from each of those articles.

There's also some original research going on, as various events during the Kosovo war (presumably occurring in the district of Prizren) are lumped together and termed "Prizren Front", rather than reliable sources actually using that term and discussing the events as part of a specific theater. Griboski (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn’t delete this article, we should let other editors to use to add on to this article. The Battle of Vërrin, Battle of Paštrik, Prizren incident (1999) should be used as a start to the article. Shqiptar1999 (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. The Prizren Front did not exist and the only remotely related event was the Battle of Paštrik, which the creator copied and pasted content from. Over 90% of the article is a direct copy and paste from other articles. Content taken from Battle of Vërrin, which the user who created this page created, uses a single reference that does not meet WP:RS. What is interesting is that even the infobox for this page was copied and pasted from the Battle of Paštrik page. ElderZamzam (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the noms rationale, and the creator Shqiptar1999 should also be informed that copying content from another page within Wikipedia requires supplementary attribution. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nominator's reasoning, and as per the rest of the comments above. I myself couldn't find any source, let alone reliable, that used the term Prizren Front. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:54, 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. ✗plicit 03:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perth Ram Temple[edit]

Perth Ram Temple (edit | talk | history | 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 cited don't seem very reliable. The article makes an extraordinary claim ("tallest temple dedicated to Rama ever built in the world"), which should result in more local coverage, but there is no coverage in local media such as The West Australian or ABC News. Steelkamp (talk) 02:39, 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 keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts (Pac-Man)[edit]

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

Recently unredirected by another user, who reverted on the basis of wanting a proper discussion as opposed to the previous BLAR. Adhering to this user's request for discussion, I have opened an AfD to determine what should happen to this article. The article's current sourcing state is particularly weak, with many uncited statements and a weak Reception section. If additional sources can be found to justify a split, then it would help the article's case, but right now it's very weak and not quite getting there, in my view. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally pinging @Kung Fu Man, who previously BLAR'd the article, and @Grapesoda22, who reverted the BLAR, for their inputs in this discussion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per my previous AfD. While as usual I feel like a BLAR was unwarranted as there is no way in heck this is "uncontroversial", especially since it passed a previous AfD, I still feel precisely the same way about the article I did before. There is not much here to warrant a standalone character article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While being bold is all nice and well, the consensus of the last deletion discussion of keeping from 2020 is not so old as to be ignored. The nomination claims there to be many uncited statements, but actually there is only the lead, where references are not generally expected, and one more unreferenced part where still the primary source is present. So just taking the referenced part, we already have an article which is beyond the length of a stub, ergo this topic fulfills the requirements of notability WP:GNG/WP:WHYN. Additionally, while the BLAR claims that trying to find sources has proven fruitless, the previous deletion discussion lists three web articles with the ghosts as the main topic (+ the CNN video), only a fraction of one of which has been used in the article, as listed by (Oinkers42) and detailed by Darkknight2149. Lastly, if the sources here were significant *to* Pac-Man, but not on their own, again as claimed in the BLAR, then why have no attempts been made to integrate at least some of them into Pac-Man as is suggested by Wikipedia:Deletion policy?
Now as the first deletion discussion was not that long ago, pinging the further participants in case they are still around and interested in the topic: @Namcokid47, Eddie891, Jhenderson777, Balle010, TTN, Rtkat3, Toughpigs, Captain Galaxy, Piotrus, Dream Focus, Shooterwalker, and Ret.Prof:. Daranios (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source analysis Let's break this down:
  • This Kotaku article is an examination of notes regarding the character AI...which pertains strictly to the scope of the original Pac-Man as a game element within Pac-Man. It's the equivalent of making an article for a video game gun because the gun is the strongest in that particular title.
  • Business Insider's article is also regarding Pac-Man development info, though at least gives a bit more commentary on the ghosts separate of the source in terms of design. It doesn't however help to establish why they should be separate.
  • This Game Informer article is weirdly more reception for Pac-Man than the Ghosts? It can be cited for reception but won't be the biggest amount of commentary, but it's also the strongest source for actual reception. And this information is mostly already cited in the article.
  • the aforementioned CNN article which goes hand in hand with the Kotaku ref.
  • Now these are just the sources brought up during the AfD, but one has to seriously consider what a source is saying. Additionally trying to hold up a 2020 AfD as a gold standard for a Keep when things have improved (including several Smash Bros. related character articles that had similarly weak reception) is a folly. Previously I made a comment that the Koopa Troopa article should have been kept because there was nowhere for that information to go. Here I contend the opposite: the worthwhile information is perfectly fine to merge into the Pac-Man game or series article, and what's here when that's considered is just too weak relying on lists, quips and WP:ITSPOPULAR.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Given the explanation of the sources above, we should still be ok for !keep. 2020 was around when I started participating in AfD and the discussion seems to be about of the same quality as the ones now... Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They've even done peer-reviewed articles about them: [67], although some might be tongue-in-cheek, we could at least argue the social impact of the ghosts. clicking on the Gscholar link in the lead brings up several journal articles; it seems the "Pac Man ghosts" are used as an analogue for a variety of things being studied in several fields. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oaktree and Kung Fu Man's source analysis. Conyo14 (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The previous consensus still holds. Kung Fu Man's source analysis didn't mention the source that I added and mentioned in the AfD discussion -- Television Cartoon Shows: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, 1949-2003 (McFarland & Co, 2005), which discusses how the creators of the 1982 cartoon handled the problem of depicting the hero eating the ghosts. Toughpigs (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for now. I may come back to this later, but I feel like there is room for expansion with the sourcing this article has right now. If it can't be for whatever other reason that gets brought then I will lean towards redirect (merge). That being said, has anyone checked for Japanese sources yet? Just thought would be worth mentioning...... CaptainGalaxy 19:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep https://www.destructoid.com/blinky-inky-pinky-and-clyde-a-small-onomastic-study/ and https://kotaku.com/pac-man-ghosts-are-smarter-than-you-think-1683857357 prove reliable sources give them significant coverage. Dream Focus 20:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Despite BLAR-ing it (and still feeling BLAR is a positive motion), I feel the found sources now do indicate some notability. I would however suggest to any editors currently not engaged in other projects to work the sources in, as "well it's on the AfD page!" doesn't really give a good indication especially four years later, and not in light of improving standards.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Destructoid reference was in the section you deleted. I think the information is better portrayed in a table than just text in the article. Does anyone else have an opinion on this section? [68] Dream Focus 21:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A better approach would probably be bullet points and using the Nihongo template to be honest, but that can be done when the dev section is rewritten. Tables in the middle of character articles unless you're doing a list tend to be pretty rough on the reader. (I also feel some consideration should be done that most of the later added ghosts may not have the same level of notability, especially given those citation needed tags, but I digress as that's another matter).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources provided above. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, characters are well known and article is well sourced. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Cos (X + Z) 19:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as this discussion has demonstrated there is coverage in games media journalism and peer-reviewed academic research. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have some concerns about the level of independence from the original game, but I think that there is something to be said about the AfD result of Koopa Troopa essentially boiling down to Koopa Troopa being iconic enough, as demonstrated from sources, that it should be kept even if the reception was a little light. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good faith re-statement from last AFD. Consensus can change, but I believe this is settled. Even as thinly characterized sprites, they have received more than enough discussion in reliable sources. The sources explain their importance to gaming history. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:47, 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 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 03:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Vivas Barandica[edit]

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

BLP for non-notable Colombian PR/marketer who does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST. Several sources are interviews conducted by or articles written by the subject, and thus not contributing toward notability. Three articles ostensibly about the subject are virtually identical ([69], [70], [71]) and thus likely marketing/bio copy; they do not demonstrate independence cannot be relied on. There are two articles about a social media controversy Vivas was involved in, but if this is all we have to go on, WP:BLP1E applies. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hoffmann[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. References in article are routine mentions and a brief death notice; a search does not provide any indication of meeting WP:GNG. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:29, 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 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, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Cape São Vicente (1676)[edit]

Battle of Cape São Vicente (1676) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Real (unlike some of the author's other articles) but very minor battle. It's just three lines in the source (wrong page btw, it's actually 149) that were hallucinated by an LLM into becoming an article. – Hilst [talk] 00:28, 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 BBC News#2020s. I'm selecting Redirect as it doesn't look like this section of the article discusses individual programs. Liz Read! Talk! 23:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Catch Up (British TV programme)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Catch Up (British TV programme) (edit | talk | history | 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 has very little information and there's already been changes to the presenter list, being deleted/re-added. There are no reliable sources or references included to make this TV programme worthy of an article. Possibly link this article to BBC News (at a push). Funky Snack (Talk | Contribs) 22:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect to BBC News#2020s per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find enough coverage for the subject to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The best source is a Broadcast article that provides significant coverage about the subject. A second source that provides significant coverage would make the subject is notable but I could not find one. There is enough coverage to support a merge to BBC News#2020s. Here are some sources I found about the subject:
    1. Kahn, Ellie (2022-01-31). "BBC3 preps 'shareable' news bulletin". Broadcast. ProQuest 2624210115. Archived from the original on 2024-05-16. Retrieved 2024-05-16.

      The article notes: "BBC3 is to return to news with a bulletin designed to provide young viewers with shareable stories, supported by comprehensive context. Launch editor Amanda Goodman has revealed that the biggest challenge for The Catch Up is getting its 16-24 target audience to engage, when many feel that “the BBC can often feel like it’s for other people, rather than them”. To overcome this, The Catch Up will clearly set out why stories matter and include extra information and value that they won’t get elsewhere. ... The Catch Up launches tomorrow in line with the channel relaunch as a 3-4 minute bulletin covering news, entertainment, sport, ‘good’ news and quirky or viral stories. A single presenter will front each programme, with the rotating team of three comprising Levi Jouavel, Kirsty Grant and Callum Tulley, who have joined the BBC via apprenticeship or journalism schemes. ... Produced by BBC News, the Catch Up will air live once per weekday between 7-9pm, with its slot varying according to each night’s schedule. Each show will be available on iPlayer after TX."

    2. Bryan, Scott (2022-02-02). "'The whole launch show is a pre-record': we watched BBC Three's return to TV – so you didn't have to". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-05-16. Retrieved 2024-05-16.

      The article notes: "The Catch Up (7.55pm). RIP 60 Seconds. BBC Three’s old bulletins were someone reading the headlines as if their lives depended on it, while a lit stick of dynamite on screen flashed from left to right. The new bulletin, tonight hosted by Levi Jouavel, is longer (180 seconds!) and thankfully more informative. No more news reports that were essentially: “Happy happy sad sad terrible tragedy sad hot celebrity bye!”"

    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) 09:51, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_May_14&oldid=1225080012"