Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< May 15	May 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayleigh Bell[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:12, 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!} 00:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The CBC source gives examples of skaters struggling with finances, and maybe counts as half a reliable source. Golden Skate is probably unreliable because it has no editors. The other sources are just scores and do not provide notability. EternalNub (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nashaba Victor[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not seeing coverage that is WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. The company that he works for VINAStech is also up for deletion. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Uganda. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some content might be work merging to the article on the local senatus for the Legion of Mary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question is of one of the people that are key to the Senatus of Uganda. He is one of the officers. I think the content doesn't require merging NBV2010 (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see no evidence of any coverage meeting the basic biographical criteria, any additional criteria, or any other criteria for establishing suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the company he works for may not be a ground for deletion of the Nashaba article because his popularity is more beyond that company, VINAStech NBV2010 (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks coverage in WP:SIGCOV .Dowrylauds (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Mohamed Helmi[edit]

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Article confirmed to qualify for WP:G6, and should be redirected to Mohamed Helmy. (non-admin closure)‎ Ben5218 (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a duplicate of an already-existing article, Mohamed Helmy, and was apparently created by mistake. Might qualify as speedy per WP:G6. Ben5218 (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Olympics, and Egypt. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – To Mohamed Helmy. Svartner (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VINAStech[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article seems like a WP:PROMO, most of the sources are not in depth like confirming their clients. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Computing, and Uganda. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage in IRS appears to be approximately zero. Being a brochure doesn't help here either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom it does fail WP:NCORP lacks sources.Dowrylauds (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Robert A. Bjork. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cogfog[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about the weekly research group meetings of two faculty and their students/Postdocs etc. As such this is definitely not appropriate content for Wikipedia, WP:!. If we were to start to include topics like this then we would have to add the (more notable) faculty meetings and weekly seminars in academic departments around the world. We should not do this, Speedly delete Ldm1954 (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Organizations, Psychology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Refbombed to high heaven, but as far as I can tell only references 2 (a PowerPoint on a Wordpress site) and 3 (a listing of the lab's alumni) mention "Cogfog" at all. Blatantly promotional and unsupported by RS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the citations are to the group's webpages or publications by the group's leaders. Beyond that all I could find were general acknowledgements to cogfog members. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Mgp28 (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robert A. Bjork per the Feburary proposal by Klbrain, and the fact that it's mentioned there already. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Robert A. Bjork, as per the arguments I've made at Talk:Robert A. Bjork#Merge proposal; I agree that the group itself doesn't have notability. Klbrain (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bajirao's Konkan Campaign[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is entirely based on original research and the synthesis of multiple events involving various states. It discusses military conflicts labeled as "Bajirao's Konkan Campaign," incorporating entities such as the Siddis, Nizam of Hyderabad, the British East India Company, and the Portuguese Empire. However, no reliable sources consider all these entities as belligerent allies against the Marathas during Bajirao I's campaign. The creator has conflated conflicts involving Bajirao with those of other kingdoms/states/entities and inserted "Maratha victory" in the infobox, despite the differing outcomes recorded in historical records. It's unclear what the author intended, but the content of the article largely duplicates information already present in numerous parent articles. This attempt seems to glorify an entity through the use of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, combining unrelated conflicts. Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, Portugal, and England. Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draft I have spent days in it so please I would request the closer to draft this page if not keep, I have added reliable sources covering this campaign, if there are possible OR and SYNTH then I'd fix it.

Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:If articles of this kind fall within the scope, we could also maintain an article titled Alexander the Great's Punjab Campaign, alongside Indian campaign of Alexander the Great and Battle of Hydaspes. Ironically, this would involve including both the Achaemenid Empire and the Pauravas in a single infobox!! That would afford everyone an opportunity to express their creativity, but this isn't the appropriate venue for it.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 6 sources on the page. 2 strong sources are from historians Sinha and Sardesai. 19 page coverage from Sinha and 4 page coverage from Sardesai. I can not verify other 4 sources but with two reliable sources that the page took its help from, is enough for keeping the page and it passes the general notability guidelines. Page does need improvement too. RangersRus (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BusterD (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Caloocan Supremos season[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under SNG or GNG. The SNG explicitly says that these are not presumed notable and thus require GNG sources. Misses that by several levels. The one source that the article has is about the league. "Stats" only article also relates to wp:not. Tagged for sources since January. Previously deleted. North8000 (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have you noticed that all the teams from 2018 have season entries? Geschichte (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but now I looked....at just the ones in the NPP que. It is then further multiplied by articles on pairs of those teams. Titled as rivalry articles, where (per a quick preliminary look) the sources don't describe them as rivalries. North8000 (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as it stands, fails GNG on its face, but I'm not sure how to conduct a BEFORE search for this. SportingFlyer T·C 17:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the ones excluded by the SNG have a near-zero chance of having GNG level sources. North8000 (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already deleted by PROD so a Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Bradford[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable actress and very promotionally written article. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to her television work, she is also notable as a stage actress. See https://www.broadwayworld.com/people/Brittany-Bradford/#credits Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I drafted the original stub because she was the only of the six actors listed for Julia that didn't have a page. Given the sources I had available I can see why it reads a little promotional would love to see improvements. Guidelines for notability: "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." On the second point she was the only woman of color in that group of six actors, and one of the few in whole program. Jake (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The actress is notable. It needs work but the article has potential and I can't see any legitimate reason for it to be deleted. 2001:8003:6C0A:B100:94AF:C1F1:3164:C5DD (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NBIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Name mention Routine mill entertainment news, fails WP:SIRS does not address subject directly and indepth per WP:SIGCOV	1. Grobar, Matt (2024-03-05). "Artists First Signs 'Julia' Actress Brittany Bradford, Multi-Hyphenate Amanda McCants". Deadline. Retrieved 2024-05-02.
Name mention Routine mill entertainment news, fails WP:SIRS does not address subject directly and indepth per WP:SIGCOV	2. ^ Reiser, Zach (13 January 2021). "David Hyde Pierce, Brittany Bradford To Star In HBO Max's Julia After Series Order". Theatrely. Retrieved 11 May 2024.
Name mention Routine mill entertainment news, fails WP:SIRS does not address subject directly and indepth per WP:SIGCOV	3. ^ VanArendonk, Kathryn (March 31, 2022). "Cozy Up With Julia, a Warm and Welcoming Treat". Vulture. Retrieved 2024-03-22.
Interview, fails WP:SIRS	4. ^ "Brittany Bradford on Alice's Julia Child-Inspired Evolution in HBO Max's 'Julia' [VIDEO]". Awards Daily. 2022-06-06.
Interview, fails WP:SIRS	5. ^ "Go Behind the Scenes of Julia with Brittany Bradford". Town & Country. 2022-04-28. Retrieved 2024-05-02.
Interview, fails WP:SIRS	6. ^ "Video Actress Brittany Bradford talks 1st screen role in 'Julia'". ABC News. Retrieved 2024-05-02.
Name mention Routine mill entertainment news, fails WP:SIRS does not address subject directly and indepth per WP:SIGCOV	7. ^ Witter, Brad (1 April 2022). "This French Chef Producer Partly Inspired The Character Of Alice On Julia". Bustle. Retrieved 11 May 2024.
Interview, fails WP:SIRS	8. ^ DeShong, Bonnie (19 May 2022). "An AAFCA conversation with Brittany Bradford from HBOMax series Julia". Chicago Crusader. Retrieved 11 May 2024.
Interview, fails WP:SIRS	9. ^ "Interview: Brittany Bradford and Thomas Sadoski on Introducing Alice Childress's Wedding Band". TheaterMania.com. 2022-05-04. Retrieved 2024-05-02.
Photos, promotional, fails WP:SIRS	10. ^ Putnam, Leah; Gershonowitz, Heather (May 12, 2022). "See Photos of Newly-Extended Wedding Band Starring Brittany Bradford, Veanne Cox, More". Playbill.

Nothing found in article or in BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth per WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonnotable supporting actress. - Altenmann >talk 22:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:ANYBIO Drama League Award [1] [2] Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep I disagree with the above analysis that the Deadline article "does not address subject directly." It is only a few paragraphs but it recounts her career to date. There is also an indepth review in the NY Times of her performance in "Wedding Band." In this she was the lead, not a supporting actress. While the interviews will not by themselves support GNG, they can be the source of data for the article. Lamona (talk) 02:33, 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!} 22:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heightened Senses[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nonnotable online story by nonnotable author. Looks like as self-promo SPA - Altenmann >talk 22:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject in my searches for sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article seems to basically be one long plot summary without any external input. If anyone wanted to read all that, then they could just read the story itself. -- D'n'B-t -- 07:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it lacks verifiable sources and reliable references, making it difficult to confirm the accuracy of the information. Additionally, the topic is too broad and speculative, leading to vague and unsubstantiated claims that do not meet Wikipedia's notability and verifiability standards. --Assirian cat (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks of significant coverage in reliable sources.Dowrylauds (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gumbi Ortiz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Essentially no coverage in reliable, independent sources online aside from an All About Jazz article. Meets no other notability criteria. Obviously created for undisclosed payments (see User_talk:WikiDMM). Clear friend a ^💬 21:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found this source from the TB times [3]. Also, All About Jazz profiles are typically self-published, as this one appears to be, so that doesn't count towards notability. Mach61 23:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this Orlando Sentinel article. Mach61 23:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - this is truly a marginal case. There's at least some evidence of some coverage (per Mach61), but he has surprisingly few followers on social media such as Instagram. So I'm not !voting. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well as the Tampa Bay Times and Orlando Sentinel articles linked in this discussion there is also an album review here so that in total there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, this is either a Relist or No consensus so I'm choosing another relist to see what other editors' opinions on it are.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RS with in-depth coverage added. - Altenmann >talk 22:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep notable musician with a significant career, having worked with renowned artists and contributed to various music projects. However, the article needs more reliable sources and detailed information--Assirian cat (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) XxTechnicianxX (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Lowlands[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:UNSOURCED since creation, WP:OR. Same as Southern Caribbean and Caribbean South America. Formally proposing deletion after rejected WP:PROD. NLeeuw (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Latin America and Caribbean. NLeeuw (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot sources in Google Scholar that use the term, mainly in giving the location of animals or plants being studied as a region of specific countries, but I couldn't find anything that actually defines it beyond a general term for the lower-elevation area between the mountains and the Caribbean Sea, nothing that describes it as a whole. Most use a descriptive lowercase "lowlands" rather than as a specific name. Nor are there other articles on here that list it as a Central American region or even something that would be a good merge target. Therefore without usable sources or substantive content to include here, delete. Reywas92^Talk 20:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's lots of sources that use the term in scholarly articles and physical geography books, mostly in the Costa Rican sense, such as [4] [5]. Needs expansion, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added sources to the article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although consider userfying. a simple search ("caribbean lowlands" -wiki) here shows lots of sources both about the biome and the cultural area. The current stub is pretty bad, so I would not mind adopting it and working on it after my students' prom and finals are over. Bearian (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It is significant that we have an experienced editor asserting that they are willing to work on improving this article if it is Kept or if editors believe it should be moved to Draft space.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid notable geographical object, plenty of hits in books. - Altenmann >talk 22:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough definition in sourcing to pass GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanshi Arya[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Being a the general secretary of a students' union does not inherently makes one notable. There's also generally no SIGCOV anywhere. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Potentially notable as the first Dalit general secretary in 30 years. This article from the Deccan Herald looks like SIGCOV: "Who is Dhananjay? All you need to know about JNU's first Dalit president in nearly 30 years". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 2024-03-26. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain I’m surprised to how you interpret SIGCOV. Is Dhananjay the same person as Priyanshi Arya? Obviously not and the only mention of this person there is

In addition to Dhananjay's victory, Avijit Ghosh from the Students' Federation of India (SFI) secured the vice-president's post, while Priyanshi Arya of the Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students' Association (BAPSA), supported by the Left, won the general se..

Where’s the SIGCOV here? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have added a reference from mainstream Indian media which is reliable, secondary source and independent media outlet. It passes WP:GNG as it has WP:SIGCOV, an exclusive full length article and at least one other article with about five paras written about her from mainstream media. I request Editors to look at all the cited references and take a call. May be, if some feel it does not pass, request that it may be draftified. thanks and regards! Davidindia (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meet Priyanshi Arya, The Newly-Elected JNU General Secretary Who Was Raised In Middle-Class Family The article from Zee News. There is another full-length article, in The SportsGrail, which I am not taking here as SIGCOV, as its main domain is sports. Davidindia (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, SIGCOV, WP:PROF, and potentially WP:BLP violations. As a university student she is not notable, absent significant coverage in Chronicle of Higher Education or the equivalent. One reliable source by definition fails SIGCOV and WP:OR. We very rarely keep any academic who has not gained tenure with at least an associate chair. There's also disputes in the sources about whether she's dalit or middle class - a real BLP violation if you're an Indian reader - and very likely to be the subject of an edit war. Bearian (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources given like Indian Express, Hindu, Deccan Herald, Times of India, Economic Times are major reputed newspapers in India and the three news websites, News Minute, News Laundry and Wire are equally reliable and reputed news houses. Except Sportsgrail all the sources cited are secondary and from mainstream news industry as reputed as Chronicle of Higher Education or much more. All are highly respected news outlets. The article about the subject is not for an academic, per say, but for a political leader in student politics. I could not understand the dispute of the subject being a Dalit. Anyway, I leave it to the editors. If possible, it can be put in the draft space. Thanks and regards, Davidindia (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between Keep, Delete or Draftify arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete University-level student leader is inherently nonnotable unless some national level achievements. - Altenmann >talk 23:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ With due respect to the senior editors here, who have been doing great work on Wiki for years, I am just curious to understand if there is a wiki guideline or policy that prevents student leaders from having a BLP page. I saw that many student leaders in Europe from Digby Jacks to Malia Bouattia to Shakira Martin to Zamzam Ibrahim, have articles. Many BLPs on student leaders were created on Wiki with just a reference or two, when they were first created. Here in India, a leader from JNU|Jawaharlal Nehru University is not just a university-level student leader... any leader from JNU gets ten times more visibility and recognition in India than a state university, say Bangalore University. Many from JNU have become National leaders later on. The subject is also notable because she is the first queer dalit student. But this bit was removed to make sure there were no BLP violations and to protect the confidentiality of the subject, as there were not many sources and it was not clear if she was “out” I feel this subject BLP passes the WP: GNG. But I leave it to the editors to decide. Thanks and regards! Davidindia (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.~~Draftify~~. The page is currently confusing with the sources given whether the page is on Priyanshi Arya or Dhananjay. I do not think a local student union leader is notable but seems like the subject must have made some achievement that could be worthy of notice so I lean on draftifying this page for improvement with more reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC) and after going through all the sources more discreetly, many are poor to unreliable to lack of coverage on the subject. General Secretary of a university is OK but it is not a significant enough to be considered notable when you cannot find more reliable sources with indepth coverage. RangersRus (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RangersRus The person who "won the Jawaharlal Nehru University student union (JNUSU) election for the post of General Secretary." is Priyanshi Arya and not Dhananjay. The author of this article is suspiciously using the "Dhananjay"'s coverages to imply notability on Arya. Dhananjay is not inherently notable either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the sources and also tried to find sources on the subject but not any help. It lead me to change my vote. Page and the subject fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the outset, I would like to declare that I have absolutely no conflict of interest. I just saw the news and did the article. I have a lot of respect to the editor for all his work, especially with a number of good articles and C rated articles. I am taken aback by a comment that attributes motives. 1000s of editors use the subject in search and cite all the articles that quoted the subject, which is quite normal. AfD discussions are not 'voting' and since it is relisted, I used the bullet as Keep. My only point is when student leaders in Europe have pages why not in India... especially when Priyanshi has at least one article, exclusively about her (Zee News is a reputed media outlet). I just want everyone to know that I am just doing this in good faith, and have no particular interest in the subject. Thanks and regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidindia (talk • contribs) 06:07, 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 merge‎ to Torchwood or an appropriate section thereof which can be handled editorially Star Mississippi 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Rift[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG its WP:ALLPLOT and has been tagged for notability for 12 years Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:31, 2 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 Wales. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, for one, Illuminating Torchwood has a lot to say about the topic at various places, but usually calls it "the Rift" or "the rift" rather than the Cardiff Rift. Daranios (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Any chance you could add this to the article (and ping me)? There is a receptions section already, but sourced to a meh newspaper so far, and nothing else. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I've added what I had thought to from Illuminating Torchwood, tough there is some more, as can also be seen in previews of pages not available at Google Books. Daranios (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Thank you. Weak keep for me considering the current state of the 'reception and analysis' section. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Collecting further sources, shorter but still relevant are: Once Upon a Time Lord, pp. 129-130, "'You guys and your cute little categories": Torchwood, The Space-Time Rift and Cardiff's Postmodern, Postcolonial and (avowedly) Pansexual Gothic", and very brief but calls it "a key point in the mythology of Doctor Who during the Tenth Doctor era", this web article. Daranios (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That web aticle doenst count for very much. Valnet sources are not great for showing notability. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 12:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: I agree, was just listing it for future reference, useable as ScreenRant still counts as "reliable for entertainment-related topics". Might have phrased that better. Being convinced of the notability of the topic based on the other sources, I've gone ahead and added that to the article as low-hanging fruit. Daranios (talk)
Keep I believe the existing sources together establish notability. While there is currently an imbalance between plot and non-plot in the article, it is also not all plot, as I believe the criticism of the Cardiff Rift being a plot device for lazy writers is relevant despite being presented in a satirical manner. (The Register is considered a reliable source.) And these problems can be solved by normal editing with the listed sources. Daranios (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge: This isn't really a separate topic from the fiction itself. I do see some mentions in sources, but not enough to reach WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The non-plot content has been expanded now since the beginning of this AfD. Daranios (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge. This is dictionaty-definition fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone: WP:Fancruft: "The use of the term ... is not a substitute for a well-reasoned argument based on existing Wikipedia policies." Daranios (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not if I was voting for deletion but its a valid argument for merging of redirecting. The article is fancruft; the topic can be adequately covered in a para elsewhere.TheLongTone (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Where should this be redirected/merged to? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between editors arguing to Keep this article and those advocating a Merge or Redirect but who have offered no target article so it would be impossible to carry out their recommendation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep this article needs a heavy rewrite but I feel there's enough to show notability, especially since there really isn't a viable merge target. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge target What about Wormholes in fiction? Keeping this ludicrous mass of cruft as a standalone article simply because of doubt as to where it should be merge/redirected to is lame beyond belief.13:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

TheLongTone, it's a real and practical concern. XFDcloser can't close a discussion as Redirect or Merge without a target article identified. It just can't be done if that is the consensus opinion. And there has to be agreement on what that target article is. That's how the software works. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Possibly List of Torchwood items? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge target as list of Torchwood items. I'd also support a merge to the main Torchwood series article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon, I can see that its a real concernbecause the article is ludicrous.TheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since the Rift is central to the premise of the show, wouldn't the actual main Torchwood article, where it is already mentioned throughout, be the better location to merge information on it to, rather than a spinout list article? Rorshacma (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely agree to either Wormholes in fiction or the main Torchwood article if a merge has to be done. The Rift also isn't mentioned at the List article, and isn't really an item per se. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main Torchwood article makes more sense to me. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Torchwood: where it is already mentioned, and where it would make a good fit. List of Torchwood items is on the chopping block, and wouldn't give the rift the importance it deserves. Owen× ☎ 13:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Environment Coastal & Offshore[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trade publication of unclear notability. Doesn't seem to have any coverage other than in WP:PRIMARY sources. If not delete, it should be pared down to a stub. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Environment, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Scholar search turns up very few citations in other journals or publications, and therefore fails WP:NMAG. Article relies entirely upon sources that are WP:PRIMARY and not WP:INDEPENDENT. Bgv. (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philtech Institute of Arts and Technology[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fairly new private school with questionable notability. Sanglahi86 (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable ref hits on GSearch, GNews and GNews Archives. No good target for redirection. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails, fails, fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG, and WP:CCOS. Only thing keeping this article from WP:A7 is the fact it is a school. Bgv. (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banning Corner, Indiana[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topo maps show just a few buildings there, indicating this is a named intersection where the Bannings once lived, not a notable community or even "extinct town". Zero hits on newspapers.com or Google Books beyond the gazetteer and Indiana Geographic Names which – surprise! – calls it a locale instead of a populated place. Reywas92^Talk 21:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Reywas92^Talk 21:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 99% of places with "Corner" in their name are just, well, corners, and this seems to be no exception. Not much found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding any RS coverage, appears to just be a named crossroads. –dlthewave ☎ 03:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, finding nothing.James.folsom (talk) 22:16, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Whiteley[edit]

(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 was routine transfer news (1, 2, 3, 4). JTtheOG (talk) 21:16, 16 May 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) 21:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided Young player who could have an extensive career, but currently not notable and I sufficient coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, routine transactional announcements are not sufficient to meet NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Sergio Torrens[edit]

(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. The most I found were three-ish sentences of independent coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Marvel Comics characters: J#Jiang Li. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jiang Li[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Shang-Chi: Not sure how this article made it to the mainspace in the first place as it doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. While the article may appear lengthy and have multiple sections at first sight, the Biography, Powers and abilities, and In other media sections are all focused on in-universe fictional content. The powers and abilities section lacks any citations, while the Biography and In other media sections solely rely on using the comics and the film as WP:PLOTSOURCE. This leaves only the Publication history section, but the majority of that section isn't even related to the subject person. The first paragraph discusses how Shang-chi's mother was supposed to be an unnamed white woman in early drafts (it is not about Jiang Li and that part is uncited). The subsequent paragraphs delve into the development of the Shang-chi comics, and has nothing to do with Jiang Li again. Only the final two paragraphs actually cover Jiang Li, with the first one focusing on the character's portrayal in the film, which already has its own section in the Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: M–Z#Ying Li. Half of the second paragraph discusses the release of a new Shang-chi comic series based on the film. Only half of the final paragraph contains original content about the character, supported by one secondary source from Comic Book Resources.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 20:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short, the entire article has only two properly cited sentences and one source that actually introduce the character. I have conducted additional searches on the internet, but I could only find one more comic review from CBR that briefly mentions the character.[6] Therefore, I don't believe this comic character deserves her own article at this point, as it fails to meet the criteria of GNG. Normally I would suggest redirecting it to the comic book series Shang-Chi. However, since the series itself is not notable enough to have its own article either, I would recommend filing for deletion.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 20:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The first nomination was from 2009, and was thus about a different topic (a non-fictional — and also non-notable — musician) than this comic book character introduced in 2021. (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: J#Jiang Li in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. It has no benefit to let that section referring here hanging. Aside from the mentioned sources, there's a web page on the character with some commentary here. Refinery29 as an entertainment news website can be considered reliable for our subject area here, right? I believe with regard to notability, the comics version Jian Li and the Marvel Cinematic Universe version Ying Li should be looked at together, as they are closely related. But as Ying Li does not currently have its own page and I currently have no time for a more intense search, I can't tell if they meet the notability threshold. Please let me know in case anyone finds more secondary sources. Daranios (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shang-Chi - Unfortunately, I am not convinced at all that this character has even the small bit of notability needed to be included on one of the massive "Marvel Character Lists". As the nomination rightly describes, almost none of the content of this article, and very few of the non-primary sources, are even about this character at all or even mention her. And the few sources that do exist specifically on this character are extremely trivial. Rather than worrying about leaving the section at List of Marvel Comics characters: J#Jiang Li hanging, that section should just not be included on that list and should be removed. As her only claim to notability is being the mother of Shang-Chi, and her recent roles in the storylines where she was recently introduced are pretty extensively covered at that article, Redirecting to there would be a sufficient WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my vote to a Redirect. My original rationale for deletion was that both Ying Li and the Shang-chi comic series were not available destinations for moving the page. However, I find both Daranios and Rorshacma's arguments reasonable, and I believe Rorshacma's suggestion is slightly better. There isn't much to say about this character even if it were moved to the list article, aside from stating that "she is Shang-chi's mother" and "she is inspired by the film character." Therefore, I changed my vote to a redirect to Shang-chi.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: J#Jiang Li to avoid WP:FANCRUFT while retaining material to a more appropriate location for this subject. Redirecting to Shang-Chi would not prove as useful as we shouldn't merge more content on related characters to that article when a comics list entry already exists. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The issue, though, is that if we avoid WP:FANCRUFT, there really isn't anything left to merge to a character list. This is a very minor, recently introduced character that just does not really have any good sourcing to show even a small bit a notability. Merging every character to massive character lists, even ones that are completely non-notable, just makes massive lists filled with non-notable, poorly sourced information. Rorshacma (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: J#Jiang Li Does not pass WP:GNG. There is very little to merge. Jontesta (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jontesta: But that section currently only contains a link here. So in my view it not very helpful to redirect to a basically empty section that then just tells us that this is some Marvel character but not any context. Shouldn't at least a brief character description, development of the character over time - American White woman, then scion of Ta Lo, then the adaption into film as Ying Li - based on the primary and secondary sources we have, be put into that target section to make things clear for the interested reader? Daranios (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea would be to merge over some content from this article to that section to retain a brief overview of this character. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the rationales when I was nominating the article for deletion is because of the lack of content. Aside from "she is Shang-chi's mother" and "the character is inspired by the film's counterpart", there is nothing else to say. The fact that she is Shang-chi's mother can be added to Shang-chi's biography, and the film counterpart already has a section in Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: M–Z. A similar example I could think of is Darcy Lewis. The fact that Lewis was an MCU original character who later appeared in the comics was mentioned in the film character's section in the MCU character list, so it is also a considerable option for Jiang Li's case. Mentioning that Shang-chi's mother was intended to be a white woman in early drafts shouldn't be added to Jiang Li's biography, since that simply wasn't this character. So I don't really see a point of adding a super minor character of two sentences to the list article. A redirect to Shang-chi would be sufficient.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 11:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Namibia national rugby union players. Star Mississippi 02:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

André Schlechter[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to List of Namibia national rugby union players as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Namibia national rugby union players A handful of international caps, but for a smaller nation, and as common finding sourcing for Namibian internationals can be difficult. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD.

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenan Cronjé[edit]

(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. The most I found were three sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Namibia national rugby union players. Star Mississippi 02:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Munio Kasiringua[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to List of Namibia national rugby union players as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Namibia national rugby union players Only a few caps for a smaller nation, as common with Namibian internationals, finding GNG passing sourcing is difficult. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on CBS commentators[edit]

(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 the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY, staff rosters and announcements, some being nothing more than a guide; barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Olympics, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:LISTN appears to be met with the 4th source in the article, combined with [[7]] and [[8]] describing the commentators as a group. Let'srun (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As of now, about 43 sources have just been added. The hosts section and the 1998 Winter Olympics section as for intents and purposes been extensively covered and referenced, as well as the 1960 Winter Games. This article should be at the very least, merged with the main CBS Olympics broadcasts article as a secondary option. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nom, I found the same sources as Let'sRun, but they mirror a WP:ROUTINE news source/press release than significant coverage, plus the rest of the list is just WP:OR anyways. Conyo14 (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." The editor that seems to be spending their entire time on wikipedia recently trying to remove pages on TV broadcasts should try reading the article which they cite, which I quoted from. These broadcast articles contain primarily historical information, they do not read like a TV guide "forthcoming Olympics broadcast on CBS on July 27 at 8pm", etc. would be a TV guide. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. While the !vote count is close, arguments for keep have not provided an argument based on the existence of sources with significant coverage, nor have they rebutted the assertion that information that could belong at "Country X at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup" can be incorporated into 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup and 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup squads until such time that sources establishing independent notability can be found. Meanwhile, editors making bolded delete !votes argued against keeping the article, but did not advance any objections to redirecting. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These articles are unnecessary WP:CFORKs from the main article 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup, and are not required. We have never created articles for teams at Cricket World Cups before, as they are wholly unnecessary, and just copying content available on other articles, such as 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup and 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup squads. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, South Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, England, and Australia. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating articles for other countries at this event:

Keep - The following articles would be suitable as in the T20 World Cup, many matches will be played and in these articles, the readers can read the per match summary, team's tournament progression, tournament kit, scorecard, per team statistics and many more of the respective cricket team at a single article, which is not possible to mention at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup article. Any articles which haven't been created earlier doesn't mean it is unnecessary, there should be an article to record any team's particular tournament edition journey. Wowlastic10 (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament summaries should be in the main article anyway, which would cover the important matches and information, so a split out for match summaries for every match including the WP:ROUTINE coverage ones is not required. Tournament kit would be WP:TRIVIA, team statistics sounds like it would violate WP:NOTSTATS/WP:TRIVIA. None of this sounds like encyclopedic content, and just because people create these articles for e.g. IPL teams (which are questionable to do anyway), that doesn't mean they are valid WP:CFORKs for this tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we keep it until first week of T20 World Cup? If you feel it useless then also, then you're free to delete it. What say? Wowlastic10 (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be against this, as the onus is to prove that they are valid articles, not keeping in the hope they might be, against any evidence that they'll be anything other than a WP:CFORK with trivia and stats obsessions (like the IPL season articles). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The concept is basically like India at the 2020 Summer Olympics, where pages like India at the Cricket World Cup are split for every edition. This is infact a very important addition to wikipedia and should be made for all teams having played every ICC tournament. Like the IPL teams, county teams; this is a very valuable addition as each page will contain stuff others cant.

I have been working on similar articles in my private space, but havent published them yet as I want to properly finish the thing before publishing.

@Wowlastic10 I would encourage you to make similar articles for all editions of the T20 World Cup. Do remove the words ICC Men’s and make it like India at the 2024 T20 World Cup; following the common name process. Furthermore, include national stats such as viewership, tournament stats of players of that country, pictures, quotes, squad information and match details with some description. Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not rename these as suggested without WP:RM consensus, as the main article is at 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Also this comment doesn't address WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More squad information such as matches played by each person, caps, etc
Proper matchwise description - not there on any other page
More information about reaction of said mactches and tournament in the country
Place to add pictures

Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information on individual players as well. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More squad information such as matches played by each person, caps, etc - can be added to squad article, as has been done for some 50 over World Cup events.

Proper matchwise description - only needed for notable matches, not those with routine coverage. This is an encyclopedia, not a fandom site.

Reactions are mostly trivial and unencyclopedic, and any events/reactions that are actually important can go in the main article.

Lots of pictures violates WP:NOTGALLERY

So none of these are a good reason to create these WP:CFORKs. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup I agree with the nom. I don't see these as being necessary as content for these forks will just be re-hashed details for the main article, and then lists and stats that violate WP:NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS as they will just be random indiscriminate. If a particular team has a 'special' tournament, or gains significant coverage for another reason, then perhaps a fork can then be made, but one for each team is unnecessary, and the comparison to the Olympic articles doesn't wash given how much bigger an event (with loads more events and athletes) than a cricket tournament. We don't have forks for Football World Cup articles for example. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia, and these lists provide extra information about the playing nation than the main article. Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per @Wowlastic10, this can be more than a list, and it warrants an article for each country. If the article does not have unique info it can be merged back. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I'm saying, thanks for explaining it on my behalf. Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia- true, but putting information into various sub articles so people can add stats trivia isn't the best way of displaying it. We have an article on the events and squad articles, and those are the main 2 things about each team anyway. WP:CFORKs are still not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I can see these becoming unnecessary, poor quality, content forks consisting of minimal prose and just scorecards... nothing which can't be included in the main tournament article. AA (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let this discussion end, i'll again start including all the necessary details Wowlastic10 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont mean to bludgeon, but this has high chances of not ending up as a mere stub; per my reasons stated above. Each ipl team gets an annual page for its tournaments, as do the english county teams. This will only broaden and improve wikipedia's scope on the matter, considering the quality of cricket articles on here is way down compared to other sports. Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE, just because other events like the IPL get articles like this every year (which I don't agree with anyway), that doesn't mean these should too. Nobody so far has demonstrated why this isn't an unnecessary WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many times a player has played in the tournament - how many matches a swuad member played

top 5 batting and bowling averages in the team etc

catches and dismissals

reaction / outrage / media coverage of tournament and team in said country

prizes and awards won by players for performance in tourney

explicit knockout stage performances

I respect your opinion wholeheartedly, but ipl and county teams have existed for long, with some of them featured and good articles. This is an opportunity for editors, who will add more valuable info and like i said, simply broaden wikipedia’s scope. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of these things are encyclopedic enough, and no article with them will be a GA or FA if the process for GA or FA is applied properly. County teams don't have season articles and most IPL teams have tables and no prose, which is what these articles are and likely will always be. This is an encyclopedia and not a fandom site. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's easy for a visitor to get all the details about their desired team at one place. I'd say we keep the Teamwise articles and should nominate the Squads article for deletion. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
If the squads article isn't there, and all the fixtures are instead transcluded from the main page; it won't be a WP:CFORK. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:ILIKEIT. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not what I like, it's a suggestion to improve these articles. Vestrian24Bio (U, T, A, C, S) 07:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Squad articles are a cricket standard for these events, and can be expanded easily. These country articles are not standard or needed, swapping one squad article for loads of country articles is not a good solution. Just because it's the sort of thing WP:IPL would do, that doesn't mean other cricket tournament articles should do that. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pretty much the point. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a deletion discussion about squad articles, that would need a separate consensus (and nominating right now would just further muddy the waters). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (alternate solution): per nom individual articles for teams' performance at each world cup seems uneccesary. I suggest we have articles for teams' overall record in the tournament and we can have season wise breakdown or details there. Cric editor (talk) 3:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Per nom. Needless forking. RangersRus (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. My instinct, as a regular AFD closer is to Redirect these article to the competition which is typically what we do with bundled nominations like this. But I don't see a consensus for this action so that would be a supervote on my part. I'd rather not close this as No consensus so let's see if a few more days of consideration can form a rough consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup Dowrylauds (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Due to the importance of cricket for these countries and the relevance of the competition. The alternative of summarizing the retrospective on all editions of the World Cup by country presented by @User:Cric editor, is valid and can later transform individual edition articles into redirects. Svartner (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of radio stations in Alaska. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KAMP-LP[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Alaska. Let'srun (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as outlined in nomination. Fails WP:GNG. Sources only indicate that the station existed, not that it was notable. Only source that points to notability is about the "other" KAMP, unrelated to the subject of the article proper.Bgv. (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in Alaska per established consensus WRT this topic area. Yet another tone-deaf nomination from this editor. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AOBF. Let'srun (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edouard Masengo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article seems to have very few if any reliable sources, and Google does not show anymore. IMO fails the WP:GNG. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Democratic Republic of the Congo. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Light Records[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Don't think this satisfies the notability guideline. The second source literally leads to the Billboard Pro home page, so it doesn't help at all. I can't check the first source because I'm currently at a school where the link is blocked, so someone should check that. My Google searches on Light Records yielded nothing useful. TheWikiToby (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Albums and songs, Music, and Companies. TheWikiToby (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have repaired this nomination, which had malformed syntax that was transcluding Wikipedia:Notability and thus breaking {{subst:afd2}}. No opinion or comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Several possible merge targets here, including its founder, its co-venture partner, and its parent label. I suspect there is coverage of this label in Christian-interest magazines, though; a little digging by specialists might turn up more WP:ATD here. Chubbles (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's hard to overstate the impact of Light Records on Contemporary Christian Music. Absolutely one of the most important, influential labels in the genre. If you go to Google Books, and search "Billboard Light Records", then click on one of the issues and search "Light Records" at the "Search all issues" you'll find a plethora of coverage. Also significant coverage in "Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music" ISBN:9798216065562. (addendum: the Wikipedia Library is down for me, so I can't search JSTOR or Newspapers.com.) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Billboard, and Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music sources as detailed above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atefeh Khademolreza[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing notability criteria for filmmakers. The strongest notability claim here is awards from minor regional film festivals that aren't prominent enough to confer instant notability freebies on their winners -- that only attaches to a narrow tier of internationally prominent film festivals whose awards get reported by the media as news, such as Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Toronto or Sundance, and not to just any film festival on earth whose awards you have to source to the festival's own self-published content about itself because media reportage treating the award as news doesn't exist. But the awards here are the latter, not the former.
It also attempted to claim a "nomination" for a more notable award, but I had to strip that as inaccurate marketing torque -- TIFF's awards simply adjudicate and consider every film present in the entire festival lineup, and do not release any special shortlists of finalists before announcing the winner. So being a "nominee" for a TIFF award that the film didn't actually win is not noteworthy, because there isn't a functional distinction between being a "nominee" for a TIFF award and simply having one's film be present at TIFF.
As for the sourcing, there is one solid and GNG-worthy source here (#1), but that isn't enough all by itself -- everything else is cited to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as the self-published websites of directly affiliated companies or organizations, pieces of her own first-person writing, and interviews in which she's talking about herself in the first-person.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more than just one GNG-worthy source. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Iran, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:45, 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!} 03:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Magerovski[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a misreading of WP:NSKATE. Subjects can still be notable if they separately meet WP:GNG as is potentially the case here. ~Kvng (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources at all, certainly nothing containing SIGCOV. Meeting or not meeting NSKATE is irrelevant here. JoelleJay (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find the necessary WP:SIGCOV from independent RS for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Maxime Deschamps#Partnership with Grenier as an ATD with which the nom agrees Star Mississippi 01:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Grenier[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. All I could find were passing mentions. Let'srun (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maxime Deschamps#Partnership_with_Grenier as an ATD. The subject's skating partner is notable. The only GNG source I found of the subject was the 2014 GoldenSkate article previewing their season. --Enos733 (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually not a bad idea. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Houymet[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As near as I can tell, this person has no great significance other than being the "first of his name", i.e. someone who has a lot of descendents. I don't even know for sure if he was a farmer, or just someone who owned land. The provided references seem to indicate that the only research done into this individual was done by his family members; any non-relations giving reference are from primary documents directly connected to the subject. I will admit that I make this AFD after taking a hatchet to the article (see Special:Permalink/1222951438 for the previous version) but there is no usable content in the older version either (most of it is editorialising, OR, or speculation). Primefac (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, France, and Canada. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A family biography project is not suitable for wikipedia. Interesting local history, but not meeting inclusion criteria here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Gwinnett County, Georgia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gwinnett County Department of Parks and Recreation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local government department, not worth changing to a redirect. TheLongTone (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was nominated for deletion 8 minutes after creation. Let'srun (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And?TheLongTone (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (Struck per below) - The article's subject meets WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Disclosure, I live in Gwinnett County and have written a few articles about Gwinnett-related topics. I assume the reason for pointing out that there were eight minutes between creation and AfD nomination is that it's difficult to perform an adequate WP:BEFORE in such a short time period, and as the largest park system in the State of Georgia it's possible that sources exist. While WP:AUD points out that local media is not necessarily a indiciation of notability, it does say that Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability and the two largest newspapers in the State of Georgia are The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Gwinnett Daily Post, both of which are reliable sources with significant coverage of the article's topic (Atlanta Journal-Constitution: [9][10], Gwinnett Daily Post: [11][12]) This article's subject has also received significant coverage in non-local sources including the Associated Press (not directly about this article's subject but there is significant coverage) and Aquatics International. - Aoidh (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find the links provide no convincing reason to change my opinion.TheLongTone (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These sources show notability through significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, meeting the relevant notability guidelines. An AfD started eight minutes after article creation with no evidence of WP:BEFORE having been completed is not a compelling reason to delete an article for lack of notability in the face of evidence to the contrary. - Aoidh (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gwinnett County, Georgia, under the local government section, with the lengthy list in columns, lest we invite the creation of tens of thousands of bare-bones articles on county-level departments across the United States. BD2412 T 20:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this point since even if notability is arguably met, the coverage doesn't lend itself to much more than the ~500 characters of prose currently in this article. I've struck my bolded keep above I think a merge to Gwinnett County, Georgia is reasonable. - Aoidh (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Gwinnett County, Georgia: Per above discussion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:52, 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 23:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Ranthambore (1226)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is more about the background of the event than focusing on the topic, because it lacks notability. There's no significant coverage in the sources but passing mentions of few words that "Ranthambore was captured by Iltutmish". Definitely it should not be in mainspace, simply because it fails WP:GNG and WP:SIRS. Based Kashmiri (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, As it does not passes WP:GNG. More of a background story with no mentioning of actual seige. Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Minmay[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Profile on an idol singer from the original Macross Saga, a.k.a. arc #1 of Robotech in the West. Recently prodded per WP:NPLOT and WP:NCHARACTER; taking it to AFD to see whether the rest of the participants agree with my decision to get it merged into/redirected to List of Macross characters or List of Robotech characters.

On a related note, stay tuned as I pitch a potential decade-old (and Waybacked) source that the page on the 1986 tie-in movie--a.k.a. Megazone 23's first go at U.S. licensing--could sure benefit from. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:51, 16 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, Music, and Anime and manga. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note The character first name is alternatively spelled Lin, and last name Minmei, and I can see additional sources (that I have not evaluated for appropriateness) under those variants. She is the antagonist of the first arc (a la Jenny from Forrest Gump) and a pretty major character. If not retained, this should be merged to List of Robotech characters which uses alternative spellings for the name and does not link here. Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have certainly never been a fan of Minmay, but describing her as "the antagonist" of Macross seems a bit harsh! In any case, I would say that List of Macross characters be the more appropriate Merge target, as that was the original version of the character, and this page is focused a lot more on the Macross version of the character, including her roles/influence in later Macross series. Though, that page would obviously have an appropriate redirect to List of Robotech characters to direct people to those versions of the characters as well. I took a quick look at the Japanese Wikipedia's article on the character, but it seems like most of the references being used there are primary, largely being official Macross publications/products. Rorshacma (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Minmei hate aside (which is purely tongue-in-cheek on my part), this is one good reason to maybe maintain an independent article: We have the same animated figure, with similar name, associated with two stories, both Macross and Robotech. How do we best represent that: at the character level o/r show level? No comment on primary sourcing--I haven't really done a search yet. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is a classic and I'd think reasonably famous anime character. While I have not done an in-depth source query, Google Scholar returns 48 hits for the primary spelling. That said, the article is bad and I'll see if I can start a reception section or such. Ping User:Daranios (as I am a bit busy right now). Anyway, I am pretty sure this meets WP:GNG (if not in the current fancrufty form). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current version of the article strangely elides what seems to be Minmay's main attribute of real-world notability: she was, as this Kotaku article explains, the first fictional singer to garner major real world success, before characters more familiar in the present like Hatsune Miku. The 1984 release of the song "Do You Remember Love?" (the Macross theme song) featured the character Minmay as vocalist, and the release reached #7 on the Oricon music charts. This is covered in the linked Kotaku article. Additional attentive coverage of the character appears in chapter six of the anthology Media Convergence in Japan, edited by Patrick W. Galbraith and Jason G. Karlin and (published under a Creative Commons license by the academic collective Kinema Club). From a cursory look, a good deal of the GoogleScholar hits are similarly about Minmay's history as the first 'virtual/fictional idol'. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Hydrangeans - I somewhat suspected that, even if sources regarding the notability of the in-universe character might be weak, there would be some regarding the real-life popularity and influence of the music attributed to her. I am not entirely happy with the English sources as none of them are super long - there's quite a number of reliable sources that all talk about her notability as one of the earliest examples of a "virtual idol" that gained popularity in the real world, but don't say much more than that. But the sources available, combined with the issues regarding the best way to cover the character in other articles as mentioned by Jclemens above, make me lean towards keeping. I would guess there might be some good Japanese-language sources regarding the topic of the real-world notability of Minmay as well, but unfortunately, as I mentioned above, the Japanese Wikipedia article is currently all made up of in-universe information attributed largely to primary sources, so no luck using that as a resource for more non-English sourcing. Rorshacma (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Hydrangeans. The sources are borderline in terms of the coverage we need. I'm inferring that the amount of coverage in English implies that there's even more coverage in Japanese, even if the Japanese Wikipedia article is poorly sourced. I am convinced that WP:SIGCOV exists. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 22:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relyon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources doesn't establish notability as defined as WP:ORG. Even doesn't pass WP:GNG. Tanhasahu (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Playoff Bowl#Broadcasters. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playoff Bowl broadcasters[edit]

(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 the most ardent NFL fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, those sourced are from forums, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:LISTN as no sources discuss the broadcasters as a group. Let'srun (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Playoff Bowl#Broadcasters, where the same information resides; the older table style is a tell-tale that this article was abandoned years ago once it was merged there and it's barely been edited or glanced since. Nate • (chatter) 23:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 22:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Orchha (1635)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another WP:OR and WP:HOAX article that failed WP:GNG. Sources don't have pages cited, and upon searching the topic, I found no mention of the "Siege of Orchha (1635)" in any sources which makes it fall under WP:OR

[13] gives no account of Siege of Orchha (1635) only has passing mentions around this event.
[14] just spun around "Rebellion of Jhujhar Singh" but author's OR makes it "Siege of Orchha (1635)".
[15] this is not even covering this event but a different Mughal campaign in 1580 and just mentioning the Orchha city. Based Kashmiri (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the tidal wave of Indian battlebollox is very troubling indeed. Either we’re providing readers with reliable information or we’re not. Mccapra (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, How these articles are even accepted for wikepedia ? Not a single mentioning of how seige went. It does not passes WP: GNG Rawn3012 (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of AFC Championship Game broadcasters[edit]

(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 the most ardent NFL fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, the majority of those are sources are from forums, also WP:PRIMARY, Youtube and dead links. The only reliable sources is about the announcer, not much else; none of these helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:LISTN as a WP:LISTCRUFT for trivia purposes. It could probably be merged to AFC Championship Game with removal of the WP:OR. Conyo14 (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN due to a lack of sources from RS. Let'srun (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of AFL Championship Game broadcasters[edit]

(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 the most ardent NFL fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists entirely of forums, if not dead; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:LISTN as a WP:LISTCRUFT that would only be used for trivia purposes. Conyo14 (talk) 17:42, 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. Owen× ☎ 22:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFC Championship Game broadcasters[edit]

(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 the most ardent NFL fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, the majority of those are sources are from forums. The reliable sources are about the announcers, not much else, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:LISTN as a WP:LISTCRUFT that would only be used for trivia purposes. Conyo14 (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:LISTN is not met due to a lack of RS. Let'srun (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kill the Scientist[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This band pretty clearly does not meet the notability criteria for musical groups. The reviews are all for a split seven-inch record they did with three other bands. That is not significant coverage. Back at that time, you could get reviews in these type of publications by simply mailing them a copy of your release. It is not indicative of anything beyond that. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only Maximum Rocknroll out of the four sources cited seems to be qualified as WP:RS. However, it is still a brief review of one of the band's albums and does not demonstrate their notability. I did some online searches, but nothing related to the band comes up. It doesn't even qualify for WP:GNG.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 20:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviews are just trivial mentions, not even close to SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reviews are brief mentions in mostly unreliable sources not cited properly and I could find no other coverage. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ewart Potgieter[edit]

(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. I found a transactional announcement, as well as coverage of an alleged criminal incident in Spain (1, 2, etc.), but nothing substantial. JTtheOG (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Think there's just about enough in the Spanish coverage combined with other bits for a weak WP:GNG pass. No real suitable redirect per WP:ATD here though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:57, 13 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!} 22:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and ANYBIO. The relevant SNG, WP:SPORTSPERSON requires at least once source which directly details the subject in RS. Nothing but stats here. BusterD (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no SIGCOV identified for this player. Owen× ☎ 22:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to AMSOIL Arena#Events. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of concerts at Amsoil Arena[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of concerts at El Campín Stadium. A list of concerts at a medium-sized venue in a small city will not meet WP:NLIST. Mach61 16:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Minnesota. Mach61 16:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to to Amsoil Arena#Events. I was going to recommend merging into the main article for Amsoil Arena, however it appears the same list (or a very similar one) is already in the article. This is not notable enough for a standalone article, however is a good addition to the main article. Standalone list fails NLIST. Bgv. (talk) 04:52, 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 redirect‎ to List of Dance Dance Revolution video games. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Stage Max[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe that this would meet WP:NVG, as I can find precious little about anywhere. This was unreferenced from its creation until I added a one source recently. However, this is the sole review (and as far as I can find source at all) that I can find. I found Nothing else on archive.org or google books, nothing on meta-critic or game-rankings, It doesn't even have a Mobygames page, instead simply being listed as an alias for Dance Dance Revolution Extreme 2. Of course being a European game from 2005, it's more than possible there is a stack of EU VG-mags that aren't available online, but it's equally possible that playmainia was the only outlet to ever cover this version. The article says it was modeled after Dance Dance Revolution Extreme 2 in America and Dance Dance Revolution Strike in Japan, but neither of these games (which I would presume would be more notable) have articles either. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Music, and Video games. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wasn't able to find anything aside from the one source already used. Nothing on Newspapers.com either. Timur9008 (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dance Dance Revolution video games - I was also unable to find any substantial coverage on Archive.org other than the Playmania review already on the article, all I found was trivial mentions in lists of release dates for upcoming games and this two sentence coverage in HobbyConsolas in a Christmas shopping guide that basically just says 'it's fun with friends and has 100 minutes of music', nothing demonstrating notability. Waxworker (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dance Dance Revolution video games, 1 short review is not enough to meet WP:GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war#Opinion polling. Owen× ☎ 22:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Z and the Israel–Hamas war[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

During New Page Reviews over the past several months, @TechnoSquirrel69 and I raised (unaddressed) concerns about WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH in how this article was set up. In some senses, it reads more like an WP:ESSAY in highlighting a particular demographic; a more encyclopedic treatment would be something like "Opinion polling of the Israel-Hamas war". The second section, on social media trends, is also heavy with WP:OR as almost none of the sources specifically mention Generation Z. (The article's assumption seems to be that TikTok users are GenZ, but building that assumption into the article without sources is original research.) To salvage the encyclopedic content, I propose to merge content from the first section into International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war#Opinion polling and Political views of Generation Z#Israel–Hamas_war. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war#Opinion polling: per OP. I'd considered starting an AFD myself. It does appear to be very essay-like, and may have issues of WP:SYNTH. — Czello ^(music) 14:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. There seems to loads of WP:OR in the article and reads like a high school essay. TikTok is stereotyped with Gen Z, but is not exclusive with the opinion pieces as noted in the article. If anything, it would be TikTok and the Israel–Hamas war, though I doubt that would be any more notable than this. (Ping if sources found). Conyo14 (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel, Palestine, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll refrain from leaving a bolded !vote in this discussion as pinging me in the nomination may have been slightly out of process. However, I'll note that the concerns I shared on the talk page a couple months ago and that have been echoed by the nominator have not been addressed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not trying to go out of process, just crediting your observations during the review process! Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Political views of Generation Z#Israel–Hamas_war and/or International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war#Opinion polling per the nom. I agree that the article is very essay-like and has a lot of WP:OR. Some1 (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the arguments made above; differentiating the content to be merged from the (probably overwhelming) amount of content to be deleted will take time, but it’s probably better than just deleting it all. FortunateSons (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS. While I commend the nominator for suggesting an ATD, in this case, the amount of coverage elsewhere is sufficient for the surveys and already excessive for Political views of Generation Z. gidonb (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war#Opinion polling. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I hate this with the 4th discussion, but there's no indication that further input is forthcoming and there is none at the moment Star Mississippi 02:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RouteNote[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Out of the 9 sources in the article only 4 could have the potential to count towards NCORP, and out of the 4, I am not entirely satisfied with their independence. ([16][17][18][19]). This article appeared for me while doing WP:NPP and I wasn't comfortable accepting it and with the last AfD being no consensus, I thought I'd opt for the AfD route. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep weakly. Would prefer a redirect to some kind of article on music distributors but I couldn't find anything appropriate. In arriving at a view to keep, I have taken into account the sources found at the third AfD, but note that no one has accessed any of these paywalled reports and one of them has gone away. However, Highking's view there is worth careful consideration. Add to that the sources in the article. The 4 mentioned by the nom. do indeed have issues, although they are debatable/marginal. Additionally RouteNote gets mentioned in a number of books. E.g.^[1]^[2]^[3] And if this were some (still) unreleased video game[20] or something then that would be way more sourcing than anyone could dream of! But this is an NCORP AfD, and the problem with the sources lies in WP:CORPDEPTH. By that measure we need Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. The books provide coverage of the service (i.e. product) but not of the company. Even then, whether we have deep coverage is very debatable. Except for the analyst reports. They may well have exactly what is needed to write the article... but no one knows! On a strict reading of NCORP, we are not there. By any other measure, this is notable. I don't think deletion is a net positive for the encyclopaedia, so unless someone knows of where it could be redirected/merged, I think this one should be (reluctantly) kept. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Eriksson, Maria; Fleischer, Rasmus; Johansson, Anna; Snickars, Pelle; Vonderau, Patrick (2019). Spotify teardown: inside the black box of streaming music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262038904.
^ Chertkow, Randy; Feehan, Jason (4 September 2018). Making Money with Music: Generate Over 100 Revenue Streams, Grow Your Fan Base, and Thrive in Today's Music Environment. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 978-1-250-19209-7.
^ Sadler, Nick (4 July 2021). The Label Machine: How to Start, Run and Grow Your Own Independent Music Label. Velocity Press.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Less Unless (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teodoro Vidal[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find out if this person passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Visual arts, and Puerto Rico. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teodoro Vidal and his collection of art has been covered by many sources ranging from academic and journalistic backgrounds. There are three academic articles cited on the page, one journalistic, as well as various shorter pieces from sources like the Smithsonian American Art Museum. An argument could be made that Vidal is understudied, especially in English, but the range of sources covering his impact on the cultural heritage of Puerto Rico and his impact on a major American museum should establish sufficient notability. Coffeycp (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Easily passes artist notability with the Smithsonian collection [21], and is featured in this book [22]. Many peer-reviewed articles about him in Gscholar as well. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes, easily passes GNG and has many reputable sources. And per Oaktree. Maybe not only do a "before" but a "present" as well. Interesting article, thanks for pointing it out. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Smithsonian collection gives him WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Less Unless (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone lived in a pretty how town[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fairly well-known poem by a definitely notable author... AnonMoos (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the spirit of WP:NBOOK criteria 4 and 5. Wikipedia should have an article on every poem by e. e. cummings, for heaven's sake. Potential sources found via the arduous process of clicking the "Books" link above: [23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XOR'easter. A full entry in the Encyclopedia of American Poetry: The Twentieth Century by itself establishes notability, and contains references to further reading, including two journal articles solely devoted to the poem. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Murphy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails general notability guideline. all i could find was a namedrop, another namedrop, yet another namedrop, another, and so on. ltb d l (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. ltb d l (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several instances of significant coverage contemporary to his era of activity. Connormah (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A multi-time national and world champion 400 m sprinter, and appears to meet GNG with trove and newspapers.com sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Sport of athletics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject meets WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV from multiple reliable sources. JTtheOG (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic Cup[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, fails notability. If played as part of the European Rugby League Championship, a redirect to could also be an option. Mn1548 (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Rugby league. Owen× ☎ 14:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems reasonable, otherwise a redirect to Rugby League European Championship B could be a better match. I can find sources for three of the match results, but no indication that the competition is notable. An archive copy of the RLEF site [30] shows it had an article for 2016 Slavic Cup but the link is dead, the competitions page [31] verifies the result, but in the European Rugby League match reports for 2007 and 2010 neither refer to it as the Slavic Cup. EdwardUK (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no reference to the competition being called the "Slavic Cup" (or a separate competition at all) then page needs deleting as it is effectively made up. Mn1548 (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be notable, and the results are already included on the Czech and Serbian national team articles. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:12, 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 14:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scarborough Rugby League Festival[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, fails notability Mn1548 (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby league, and England. Owen× ☎ 14:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable tournament with minimal coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:54, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of God Church[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not only does this article currently serve as little more than free advertising for HOG, but also the sourcing is really threadbare (90% self-published/promotional sources) and I could find nothing to show that this organisation meets GNG. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi King of Lettuce, I hear your considerations. Most parts of this article was written some years back by multiple editors, reading it now I do agree that it could be edited to sound more impartial. Perhaps an edit instead of a deletion. As for the sources, it would be difficult to conclude that the sourcing is threadbare. A majority of the citations in the article are from reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, such as Singapore’s longest running and most widely circulated daily newspaper. Jchang457 (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately most (all) of these citations do not establish notability. If, for instance, there was an ST piece which had HOG as the main subject, that would be a different story. Numerous trivial mentions do not "stack up" to establish significant coverage. No doubt this "church" is famous enough but we shouldn't conflate fame with notability either. While I'm also trying my best to assume good faith, your only edits have been to this page (the same can be said for the article's creator)--if you have any undisclosed affiliations with HOG, you should probably disclose them and refrain from further editing the page. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 08:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has a lot of promotional cruft in it that needs cleanup, but I think its notability can be reliably established. Here are three sources that pass the bar for independent, reliable, secondary, significant coverage under WP:NORG: Straits Times, Christianity Today, and Channel News Asia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified above, particularly the Christianity Today piece, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is what we mean when we say "clean up is not deletion." Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament Final Four broadcasters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with sourcing from [32], [33] and [34].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esolo5002 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't stop the fact that this is still noting but a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources provided are about the ratings which can be a blurb in each Final Four article. However, media sections regarding which station, play-by-play, and color commentator is not necessarily notable to collegiate basketball (men's or women's). Conyo14 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All 14 sources are WP:PRIMARY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:12, 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of WNBA Finals broadcasters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Entirely unsourced but a single one that is a TV listing, not asserting notability either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found these from 2023's: [35] and [36]. Conyo14 (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main article for the WNBA Finals also lists the television networks to broadcast the event in its Results section, but not the names of the commentators themselves. So the commentators could be added or merged to the main WNBA Finals articles as a secondary option. Otherwise, the list could be cleaned up or given additional context behind the media rights holders, such as NBC, who was the initial main WNBA television partner when it launched in 1997 as well as Lifetime, who was an early cable television partner. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Had a check through the sources: as ESPN neld the rights, they are considered WP:PRIMARY as is WNBA. Some of these are about the game with the broadcasting being a tiny part, some are broadcasting schedules, some are announcements. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 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 no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of BitTorrent clients[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is entirely or nearly so primary sourced with no significant independent coverage comparing different BitTorrent clients. (This listicle—which barely does any direct comparison—is the best source I can find.) (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Internet. (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now This article is also a magnet for spam. The Banner talk 17:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid navigational and information list. Far more useful than a category, more information provided. If spam is a problem, then block IP addresses and new users from editing it. Dream Focus 05:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned about spam, I'm concerned about notability. Perceived usefulness is not a valid notability rationale. (t · c) buidhe 05:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, and the section at Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Advantages_of_a_list. Dream Focus 10:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This vote doesn't actually provide a rationale for keeping the article other than merely asserting that the article is valid and useful. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dynluge's argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: CLTs don't need notability (only the included elements do). Pretty much all of the things compared here are reasonable; there have been no debates about whether a feature here should be removed, and in my opinion they all look fine. The article has also been pretty stable, so I don't think there's much of a maintenance burden. (The included software in the list are also all articles and should meet notability, so I don't think NOTDIRECTORY-esque arguments apply either) Thus, I don't think Dynluge's argument applies. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP: NLIST applies here. The assertion that only the included elements of a list need to be notable isn't true, because notability is never transitive. The arguments about the stability and maintenance cost of the article aren't relevant and skirt the core issue of notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the relevant guideline, but torrent clients as a whole definitely have significant coverage. PCMag and TorrentFreak list them like once a year. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to specific sources and add them to the article. Claiming that two websites could possibly provide coverage on them isn't sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[37] [38] [39] and [40] are just examples of lists of them. You also have [41], which extensively compared 2004's BitTorrent clients to a proposed version, and [42], a methodology proposal to use on BitTorrent clients. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my last comment, please add these sources to the article. Otherwise, someone may nominate the article for deletion again, which would be a massive timesink. It doesn't have to be substantial. A sentence or two summarizing each source would be sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think the lists have much use, maybe I could indeed find some use in the latter two. I'll try to read up this weekend. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Articles need to meet notability guidelines in order to be kept, and this article doesn't meet WP: NLIST. The sources in the article don't discuss BitTorrent clients generally, and neither does the article in the nomination. I'm happy to reverse this vote if someone comes forth with compelling evidence that this article meets WP: NLIST (or could meet WP: NLIST with some improvement).

HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see how it would meet WP:NLIST but any option for merging can be entertained. Shankargb (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the citations I've provided? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage as per the links above. Greenman (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets NLIST [43], [44], [45], [46]. Meets CLN as a Wikipedia navigation article. // Timothy :: talk 16:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We're a good 15 years from the bittorrent heyday, so an awful lot of the comparisons and lists will be gone due to linkrot, but there were tons of sources comparing this software to meet NLIST. Might be tougher to find now, but even just doing a google news search returns a bunch of comparisons and lists. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are counting the sort of listicle articles that Timothy linked, at minimum the article should be moved since these sources don't actually show a comparison between different clients, just listing multiple. (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stun Siva[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No valid reliable sources. Fails WP:SIRS and so fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Tamil Nadu. UtherSRG (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG, as no reliable sources were found after my investigation. The Times of India cannot establish notability according to WP:TOI. Additionally, citing YouTube in the article is entirely pointless when it comes to establishing notability. GrabUp - Talk 12:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor and unreliable sources that do not have coverage on the subject's biography. Few words on turning from stuntman to director to getting opportunities to movies he is associated with. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:GNG & WP:NBIO and is full of unreliable sources. Based Kashmiri (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have included the early life, personal life & carrer as part of Stun Siva's biography WP:BIO in the page: Stun Siva and WP:SIRS along with including articles from The Hindu & The New Indian Express newspapers & Google Books WP:SIRS, WP:THEHINDU and WP:INDIANEXP as evidences for Stun Siva's life, career and achievements. Please kindly consider my points to retain the page: Stun Siva— Preceding signed comment added by Ratheef Ahammed Refuon (talk 14:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

contribs)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 14:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

France national bandy team[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only 'known' appearance is supposed to have been at the 1913 European Bandy Championships, but it is likely this competition never happened. ; As we see the human society is liquid, we are all just running with the flow (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

The article Belgium national bandy team already seems to have been deleted for similar reasons.

Comment: Redirects cannot be discussed at Articles for deletion. Either you must revert the redirection of Austria-Hungary so this can be discussed as an article, or let the redirect stay, or go to WP:RFD. In addition, the deletion rationale does not fit Italy, although I agree that the page looks questionable. Geschichte (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have readded the information about the 1913 championship tournament in the articles about Italy and Austria-Hungary now, so they may be discussed here now. ; As we see the human society is liquid, we are all just running with the flow (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Austria, France, Hungary, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Austrian entry. A quick search produces nothing reliable about the national team (bandy apparently was played in Austria much earlier than 1913). In black-or-white matters it is better to err on the side of caution. --Викидим (talk) 03:19, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cinebulle[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. toweli (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Aviation. toweli (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete me neither. no sigcov. --BoraVoro (talk) 14:52, 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. ✗plicit 14:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CannaCruz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure there is anything particularly notable about this small business, although I recognise this is an interesting area of commercial activity. Newhaven lad (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable local business and fails WP:NCOMPANY. Longhornsg (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Source coverage is trivial and fails WP:NCOMPANY. Bgv. (talk) 04:07, 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 keep‎. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Student Exchange, Ontario[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note – Grand'mere Eugene has had much better luck finding adequate substantial coverage than I have and the article no longer looks like [47]. I'm fine with withdrawing the nomination. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:25, 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 14:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Benkő[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As is the case with several players from Hungarian football around this time, he had a short career in the NBI with no significant coverage that can be found about it. Little is known about his career after 2015, when the HLSZ profile ends. He did score many goals on one of Sweden's lower tiers, which is hardly significant, neither is his signing for a team on the 7th tier. Geschichte (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Osirica[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Purported masonic order that is briefly mentioned in some afrocentric books from George G. M. James, Asa Hilliard and Yosef Ben-Jochannan. The concept is spelt as either 'Osirica' and 'Osiriaca'. Although tagged as a possible hoax, it doesn't seem to be one. The idea exists, though it's not notable enough and the works it appears in are rejected by most historians. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- In addition to the (probably not RS) books mentioned above this order is also discussed in C.H. Vail's "Ancient Mysteries and Modern Masonry" and "African-American Artists and Art Students: A Morphological Study in the Urban Black Aesthetic." which is a Penn State dissertation by M.N. DePillars. This is enough to meet the GNG even though these sources aren't currently used in the article. Central and Adams (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind specifying the page numbers? I've managed to find online copies of both sources, but I can't find where the topic is mentioned. Sgubaldo (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Central and Adams. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:18, 10 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!} 07:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it documents a notable historical and cultural organization that significantly contributes to the preservation and promotion of ancient Egyptian heritage and African identity. Additionally, the article provides verifiable information about Osirica's unique initiatives and influence, supported by reliable sources that affirm its impact and relevance.--Improvised but so real unicorn (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? The article talks about a historic masonic order, not a cultural organisation promoting ancient Egyptian heritage. It also has no sources, so where are these "reliable sources that affirm its impact and relevance" you speak of? Sgubaldo (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see more discussions on how to improve this article that policy-based arguments to Keep it. But that does demonstrate a possible interest by participants on improving this article to meet the points of the noimination and there is a rough consensus to Keep. Good luck with bringing it up to meet Wikipedia standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mathematical theories[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE: This list seems aimed to list all articles having "theory" in their title. It present at the same level some wide areas of mathematics (set theory) and some very specialized method (Iwasawa theory). So, it does not contain any relevant encyclopedic content. D.Lazard (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator is saying that WP:LSC is not satisfied in a meaningful way. Having "theory" included in the title was probably good enough in 2004, when the list page was first created. The list is hardly complete: sieve theory isn't there, for example. While mathematicians recognise as "theory" any coherent area with enough definitions, results and characteristic ideas, this kind of theory is nothing like a scientific theory. So the list may be of little or no help to non-mathematicians. I would suggest first a division by subject headings, such as "theories in topology". I mean, this is potentially a useful list, just as a list of problems or a list of theorems would be, but there should be more explanation and apparatus. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For having this article, we must have a sourced definition of the concept of a mathematical theory; the unsourced three lines of Mathematical theory are far to be sufficients. Moreover, in mathematics, some other words are used with a similar meaning, such as "geometry", "algebra", "calculus", and "analysis". For example, projective geometry means "projective-space theory"; commutative algebra stands for "commutative-ring theory", to be compared with ring theory, which deals with non-necessarily commutative rings; integral calculus stand for "theory of integrals"; real analysis stands for "theory of real functions". So, without a reliably sourced definition of the concept of a mathematical theory, this article is pure original synthesis. D.Lazard (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a reasonable argument, but I would like to see it on Talk:List of mathematical theories because there is plenty to say. To use your examples, axiomatic set theory is a number of choices of axiomatic theory, while Iwasawa theory was originally "Iwasawa's analogue of the Jacobian", which John Coates renamed, and over the course of half a century became a major subfield of algebraic number theory, which is not an axiomatic theory so much as the study of algebraic number fields. To be really helpful, this sort of information, including the genesis of a theory, should be tabulated. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to list of mathematical theories and subfields. Such a list could have sections for eponymous theories such as Morse theory and Iwasawa theory, and for other special cases. The distinction between commutative algebra and the subfield of ring theory dealing with commutative rings is that commutative algebra is also concerned with modules over such rings. That is seen in the way the earlier name ideal theory was revised, modules over a ring being a generalisation of ideals in a ring, an innovation in the school of Emmy Noether. The list has been harmless enough for 20 years. No need to delete, when we can adjust the scope a bit. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I looked at that list, but it seems more like a category than an article. For example, wikipedia has a Category:Duality theories. --SilverMatsu (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the nominator. But it would be ok as a category. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Charles Matthews. Informative article. Raymond3023 (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename, per those above. This would also benefit from some prefatory text describing what qualifies a topic as suitable for inclusion in the list. BD2412 T 13:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page as a valuable resource - maybe it would be better renamed or changed to a category or whatever, but the lack of organization in the higher math fields can be extremely confusing (especially for people who are math hobbyists rather than university mathematicians). We need more resources like this, not fewer. So maybe it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but it is a good resource, so keep per WP:IAR. Love, Cassie. (Talk to me!) 15:04, 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 keep Leinster Chess Leagues, to which the other pages will redirect. Noteworthy and verifiable content from the latter can be incorporated into the former at editorial discretion‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leinster Chess Leagues[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Leinster Chess Leagues article, and the articles I am combining in my nomination below that represent to tropies of the different leagues for the main article, fail the test of independent notability for each article and further, these articles are large WP:NOTDATABASE violations and full of WP:OR. This content would be better suited on the website of the organization and not Wikipedia as the pages often boil down to league rules and not secondary independent coverage.

Also nomintated for deletion:

Thanks, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 15:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Games, Organizations, and Ireland. Skynxnex (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have written a reply in the Talk page attached to this article. If you cannot read that reply I will copy it here. With thanks, sincerely JohnPDLoughran (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You should copy your reply here yourself. A closing admin may not (and is not necessarily expected to) search for comments placed outside the AfD discussion thread. You could consider leaving out the parts, of your comment, which are unrelated to the concerns raised in the AfD nomination. Guliolopez (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnPDLoughran are you associated at all with the Leinster Chess Leagues or any of their associated divisions? microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Marcus, copying my reply here as directed. Please excuse me as I am new to editing Wikipedia, and was confused as to where to post it. Some of the help files are confusing and mention the Talk area as a way to respond. Can I ask, should I prepend this reply with something like {{MicrobiologyMarcus}}? Here is my edited reply and answer to your query.

I was shocked to see that you were recommending the deletion of a large number of articles relating to chess in Ireland. These are valuable resources not only of current but also of historic interest, albeit to a small population of chess players. The Leinster Chess Leagues page links the different articles including one on the Armstrong Cup which I read with interest. It started in 1888 and may be one of the oldest such competitions in the world. The information in these articles is supported by two independent Irish chess history websites which are not affiliated to the Leinster Leagues. They quote many independent sources of information including newspaper articles, one written in 1888. If you delete these articles you will delete a valuable resource. Because the chess playing population is so small it is difficult to source more independent references, although I am continuing to work on this with collaborators, and I would be glad of advice on ways to improve this. Needless to say I am new to publishing in an encyclopaedia. One of the articles which first spurred my interest was the article on Chess in the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Regarding my links with the Leinster Chess Union. Firstly I am a player on a team that competes in the leagues, and currently the chairperson of Skerries Chess Club. I have no official membership of the LCU. Our club pays them a small fee to participate in the leagues each year. While it is true that Skerries did win the BEA Cup one year, it was before I was a member, so I had no personal interest in writing that first article. I added the article on the Leinster Chess Leagues after that simply to link various articles on each league together, and to avoid duplication of material within each league article. The reason I wrote the article on the BEA Cup was that we were given it by accident. Because it was a cup which had been donated in 1972 and passed from club to club since then and miraculously survived I felt it was worthy of note, so I did quite a lot of research, still ongoing, to discover the winners each season and record them in the article as well as taking a picture of this, in my opinion, priceless artefact, before getting its base repaired. I am of course open to suggestions as to how to improve the articles (BEA Cup or Leagues article) but I would be deeply disappointed to see these articles disappear, even moreso if their deletion was to have a knock on effect of causing the deletion of other valuable articles, which I had no hand in writing, on the other Leauges: Armstrong etc. With thanks, yours sincerely JohnPDLoughran (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The two independent sources in the article are WP:BLOGS and are therefore not reliable. I was able to find a few brief news items in the Irish Independent: [48] [49], but it doesn't seem like quite enough on its own to demonstrate notability for the leagues, much less for the individual divisions. I would either redirect everything to Irish Chess Union#Team competitions or otherwise redirect/merge the divisions into the Leinster Chess Leagues article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that the blogs cited old newspapers. If these sources can be confirmed, the individual divisions might very well be notable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there are several titles here to consider, my own recommendation is to:

Delete O'Sullivan Cup. This article, on the seventh (childrens?) tier of an amateur/regional chess competition, doesn't have sufficient reliable sources to even support its text. Not to mind a claim to notability. Under any applicable criteria. (The article itself states that there aren't sufficient sources to establish what happened in relatively recent runnings of the competition. I mean, we're relying on this random picture to "guess" that the people (children?) pictured might have come third in 2015? Seriously?)
Delete BEA Cup. This article, on the fifth tier of an amateur/regional chess competition, doesn't have sufficient sources to support its text. The author (within the text) states that there aren't even sources to establish who won the competition on any given year. That we reliant upon "reading the engravings off a cup" (and using that as a basis for content AND justification a stand-alone article) is a very clear indication that WP:SIGCOV is not met. By a significant margin. The thing (the cup) cannot be a reference for itself or represent coverage of itself. It's just backwards and bizarre.
Redirect Armstrong Cup, Heidenfeld Trophy and Ennis Shield. And maybe O'Hanlon Cup. Either to Leinster Chess Leagues (if that title is kept). Or to Irish_Chess_Union#Team competitions (if not). Similar to the above, I have significant concerns with the reliability and accuracy of the sources and content in those articles. And do not see any justification for the project being a WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTWEBHOST repo for previous winners of these amateur regional chess competitions. However, there is some limited coverage - to just about justify a redirect as an WP:ATD. And to mention the competitions WP:WITHIN the target article. For example, the Armstrong Cup is mentioned (almost always in passing and always/only in regional newspapers), in places like this, this and this. Which could justify covering it in either the Leinster Chess Leagues or Irish Chess Union articles. And perhaps leaving a redirect.
Weak keep Leinster Chess Leagues (or redirect to Irish_Chess_Union#Competitions). While I'm not swayed by the creator's arguments ("I'm shocked", "It's useful", "supported by 2x special interest websites"), there is a small smattering of limited coverage in some local sources. Like this, this and this or this. If kept, as a standalone title, the article needs significant work however.

My 2x cents anyway. FWIW. Guliolopez (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment with many, many thanks to @Guliolopez for collecting a list of sources. I want to preface this by saying I am trying to be fair and impartial and stave off concerns that I am attacking a particular chess league or its members and, should the evidence arrive that any or all of the articles I nominated are WP:Notable, I will gladly change my vote. Please let me know, I would be happy to add to the following table. As it stands, I still believe the articles are a violation of WP:NOTDATABASE and would need to be reworked, but I am a big believer in WP:THREE. With that said:

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:MicrobiologyMarcus
"Garden squad win promotion". Irish Independent. 4 April 2012.		coverage about a team winning a match to advance to the Ennis Shield, a part of Leinster Chess league, does not surpass trivial coverage of either of those subjects.	✘ No
"Chess Club". Irish Independent. 11 March 2009.		? I would evaluate this as significant coverage of the tournament/event, I don't now if I would consider that coverage to be of the league itself, or if coverage of this extent would be inherited to the organization, such to meet WP:NCORP	? Unknown
"Chess club wins promotion to division two after dramatic final round of matches". Irish Independent. 14 June 2023.		as the first, coverage is of a club with trivial mentions of Leinster Chess League and Ennis Shield	✘ No
"It's checkmate for local club at Leinster Finals". Irish Independent. 11 May 2011.		? I would say this may meet SIGCOV of Leinster Chess Championships, which again is not the leagues. The extend of the coverage of that in the article is The cup was first competed for as far back as 1912 and has been won by a distinguished list of top Irish chess players over the years. The rest is, as before, coverage of the tournament/event with the same inheritance concerns.	? Unknown
"Chess club move into history books". Irish Independent. 24 April 2003.		subject of the coverage is again a club with passing trivial mentions of Heidenfeld trophy and Armstrong Cup	✘ No
"Chess mates descend on Bray". Irish Independent. 17 March 2010.		? strongest argument for SIGCOV of the tournamentevent articles in my opinion, coverage of the 203-word article is split equally among the event and then between the season structure of Leinster Chess Union League ("The league begins in September every year and lasts until March.") and the history of Armstrong Cup ("...new owners of the infamous Armstrong Cup, which was first presented in the 1888-1889 league, therefore making it one of the oldest sporting competitions in Ireland.")	? Unknown
"Chess club has come a long way over 25 years". Irish Independent. 3 August 2005.	interview with a member club member	? this is definetly SIGCOV of a club with probably acceptable mentions of Leinster Leagues ("...in the Leinster Leagues that run from September to March each year.")	✘ No
"Chess Club finally secure Ennis Shield". Irish Independent. 8 May 2002.		coverage of a club with mentions of the Ennis Shield, same inheritance concerns with all tournament/event articles, but even weaker argument here as the article itself isn't about the event.	✘ No
"Your weekly sporting club notes". Irish Independent. 3 October 2006.		trivial coverage of the tournament/event Heidenfeld Shield mentioned, nothing in depth about subject or organization	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I would gladly add to the above table if sources are provided, or if you believe my assessment of any of the above are wrong, I would be happy to discuss. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the sources and analysis done to date in the table, I feel the like strongest !keep argument would be to have a Leinster Chess Union League as that seems to be the most frequently used identifier of the WP:NCORP, but I think this would come down to how strong the passing mentions are of the leagues in the event coverage above, and whether the coverage of the event is WP:Inherited to the Chess Union League itself or not, and whether the coverage satisfies as significant; I'm leaning no, based on my reading of WP:SIGCOV:

Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

but I would understand where this might be interpreted differently here. Given that, then all the other articles could be redirects (see WP:CHEAP) and the ones which are sourced by only event coverage could have their own sections on the main article. I think that would be the strongest possible argument for keep, however, given the current references. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A chess blog website claims that newspapers such as the Irish Times and Irish Press have written some sort of coverage about the various leagues decades ago, e.g. for the Branagan Cup. I have no idea what this coverage looks like, whether it's also trivial, etc. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting. With respect to WP:OFFLINE, I can't help but feel as if these were present and properly cited in the article, they would be suitable, but to mass copy and paste them into an article from their collection on the organisation's website feels less-than-inline with WP:V. Given the context of the page, I would suspect someone has gone back (probably very labouriously) to compile the records and statistics of the page, but I doubt they are significant coverage of the organisation itself in such a manner to establish WP:NCORP. They would, however, be suitable to cite the (probably WP:NOTDATABASE violation that is the laundry) list of past winners, in such a manner to satisfy WP:OR concerns—that is, the ones that cite news articles and not tweets. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 8 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!} 07:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep/merge my sense of the source analysis is we have enough coverage for the topic to have an article. I'm not sure which article title is best. We do have reason to believe there are offline sources too. For now I'd say keep Leinster Chess Leagues and merge the rest (a couple sentences at most for all but the Armstrong Cup) into it. I'm happy to take an expansive view of this article having coverage count that covers those various topics... Hobit (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main page, merge and redirect cups, stubify to verifiable facts: As the nom, I think I'm the only hold questioning notability. For consensus, I would concede notability for the main league given the breadth of coverage, in spite of my SIGCOV concerns above. I think altogether these pages should be merged to the main article, the cup pages redirected, and the articles signifcantly reduced to simply contain facts and not the long NOTDATABASE violations. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skye Lucia Degruttola[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actress, Fails NACTOR and GNG - Her role in Grantchester is only recurring and unfortunately I've not found anything substantial online (all are one-bit mentions), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably still WP:TOOSOON by the looks of it.-KH-1 (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cotton Bowl Classic broadcasters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's an important college football bowl game, with sourcing from [50], [51], [52]. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT applies. This is not about the notability of the games itself. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:LISTN is not met due to a lack of RS. Let'srun (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sun Bowl broadcasters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has a storied history on CBS, see [53], [54], [55]. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT applies. This is not about the notability of the games itself. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN due to a lack of sources from RS. Let'srun (talk) 16:09, 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Mashwani[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject evidently falls short of meeting WP:POLITICIAN and doesn't appear to satisfy the basic WP:GNG. This BLP was created by a SPA InamAleem990 (talk · contribs) and subsequently, the BLP was moved from the draft NS to the main NS. Much of the press coverage he received occurred during his detention, which may not be enduring enough to establish WP:N. Also see Draft:Azhar Qazi Mashwani. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This, this, this, this, this indicates that the subjected person is notable in Pakistan as his kidnapping issue is widely covered by Pakistani media. If not a notable one, why too much outrage over his kidnapping issue? --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So as I mentioned in my nom. above, a significant portion of the press coverage he received stemmed from his detention/kidnapping but this is not be substantial enough to establish WP:N. Describing himself as a social media activist, it's understandable that his detention would attract some media attention. However, does this attention render him notable enough for a Wikipedia BLP? Likely not. Furthermore, considering that this BLP was created by SPA - possibly by the subject themselves and was created in a questionable manner by moving an unapproved draft to the main NS, we shouldn't consider its inclusion based solely on insufficient press coverage that fails to meet even basic WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Creation by SPA is another issue. You must take it to WP: SPI as you have accused the page creator as SPA. Being rational, I don't find any issue to entertain this AfD. Excuse me if I missed somewhere. Fair is fair. So we should come to the rational AfD discussion. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage you're referring to was published in March 2023, coinciding with the subject's detention. According to our policy, individuals known solely in connection with a single event typically don't merit an BLP. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:58, 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. ✗plicit 03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Miller[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Half the sources don't even make references to Miller, however there is this sources which does count towards WP:GNG (and was the only one I was able to find). GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Oklahoma. GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Miller's biggest claim to notability is his appointment to the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board, a five member appointed state agency that is required to approve pardons. I'm not convinced either way whether that position meets WP:NPOL, but in a state that is doing more executions than most others the people in charge of determining whether to pardon those to be executed have some degree of notability. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:47, 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) 06:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see the argument here or why it’s open for debate. He clearly does not meet WP:Notable guidelines and does not merit his own article. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure what is behind this article creator's interest in the parole board, but I see nothing here beyond regular government agency work. I haven't dug into it but I would not be surprised if other related articles also fail GNG. Lamona (talk) 03:16, 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!} 04:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TJ The Frenchie[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It pains me greatly to be taking an article about such an obviously very good boy to AfD, but based on my search, he does not meet WP:GNG. The only editorial coverage I came across was from Kent Life, a local newspaper. JSFarman (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject in my searches for sources. I found a 6 March 2020 article in the Swindon Advertiser that discusses a two-year-old Frenchie-cross-American bulldog named TJ. But this Wikipedia article says TJ the Frenchie was born 19 March 2021, so this would be a different TJ. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find independent and reliable SIGCOV about the subject. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 12:52, 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. Star Mississippi 14:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. Unreferenced for 17 years and fails GNG. Would reconsider if someone found coverage in Hindi or Marathi. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Maharashtra. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - first of all, what WP:BEFORE was performed here? There is certainly sufficient material available in English to establish notability. Take for example,
- Hindustan Times, "Apart from a rise in wages, the union also demanded the scrapping of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, a law that allowed only one trade union – Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) – to function. For long, industrial workers had accused RMMS of being hand in glove with owners. "
- Economic and Political Weekly, "...Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), which has enjoyed the right of being the sole bargaining agent for all textile workers in Bombay, [...]"
- Indian Express, "Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS),the recognised union of mill workers."
- The Western Political Quarterly (1958) "...governments for their existence. The Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh. (RMMS) of Bombay City serves as the major exception to this dual classification and thus constitutes a third type of textile union . In comparison with the “ weak areas " the RMMS is thoroughly entrenched in its legal "representative " status and enjoys a significant degree of independence from political ties ."
- Economic Times, "The Hindoostan Spinning and Weaving Mills cleared the last tranche of its dues amounting to Rs 3 crore payable to workers belonging to the companyâ€™s Mahalaxmi unit. The mill has 3 units in Mumbai at Mahalaxmi, Dadar and Prabhadevi. Following an agreement signed with the official union the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) in â€˜02, around 2,000 workers opted for VRS."
- India Today, "But Salunke is steadfast in his support for firebrand union leader Datta Samant, the one man most responsible for the unprecedented strike. "We are prepared to go back to work even if our monetary demands are not conceded," he says. "But the Government must recognise Samant's union as the legitimate one, and kick the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) out of our lives."
- DNA, "The Congress party had nurtured its “chamcha” union, the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), and mill owners colluded with it to engineer ... [...] the Khatau saga that had “all the ingredients of a ‘Mollywood’ blockbuster, replete with guns, gangland killings and the subversion of unions."
- Rediff, "In November 2000, a final agreement on a voluntary retirement scheme was arrived at between the Indian National Trade Unions Congress-affiliated Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh and the managements of the Standard Mill (Prabhadevi) and New China Mill (Sewri). Naik and 3,550 others took VRS but got the money only after two years"
- Hindustan Times, "Ahir, who began his career as a trade union leader, once led the powerful Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), the only recognised union of ..."
- Economic Times, "While the officially-recognised Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) is supporting the land development plans, the Left-leaning unions have ..."
- The Indian Labour Year Book (1948), ""The Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Bombay, handled 218 cases during the year 1948 and realised Rs. 90,911 as compensation. Both the unions have opened special branches to attend all matters relating the claims and to render assistance to all workers whether members of the Union or not", p. 347 indicates a membership of 20,462.
- The Politics of Labor in a Global Age: Continuity and Change in Late, "Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (National Mill Workers' Union). Under the corporatist Bombay Industrial Relations Act of 1946, a single trade union is ..."
- Outcaste Bombay: City Making and the Politics of the Poor, "... Bombay Industrial Dispute Act of 1946. The RMMS thus became an important presence in the lives of the workers by the end of the 1940s."
- The Power of Place: Contentious Politics in Twentieth-Century Shanghai and Bombay, "... Bombay shut down and 250,000 workers (full-time and badli) went out on strike. The Maharashtra government declared the strike illegal. Labor officials and mill owners refused to discuss terms with any union other than the RMMS."
- Organising Labour in Globalising Asia, "... RMMS is the most extreme example of this phenomenon in Bombay.7 The power of the RMMS was first created by recognition under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, but was boosted by legislation restricting the closure of mills that ..."
- The Emergence of an Industrial Labor Force in India, "... RMMS is shaped by its legal status under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act ( 1946 ) . The view is frequently put forth by government , labor , and management officials in Bombay that the RMMS would even collapse without this ..."
- A Study of the Labor Movement and Industrial Relations in the Cotton Textile Industry in Bombay, India, "... ( R. M. M. S. ) , Bombay -- the name the organization bears today . The Sangh started a determined effort to remove the Red Flag organization from its position of leader of the Bombay textile workers . Its prestige was greatly enhanced by ..."
- Bombay Brokers, "... Bombay mill workers to lead them in a conflict between the Bombay Millowners Association and the union: the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), which had represented the mill workers for decades. This led to a complete shutdown of the ..."
- Workers Education in Asia, "THE WORKERS ' EDUCATION ACTIVITIES OF THE RASHTRIYA MILL MAZDOOR SANGH ( RMMS ) , BOMBAY ( INTUC ) ( a ) Aims and objectives of workers ' education pogrammes for 130,000 members of RMMS ( INTUC ) are as follows : ( i ) To prepare ..."
- India Today, "... ( RMMS ) , which repre- sents the city's over one- lakh textile mill workers ... "
- Labour and Unions in Asia and Africa: Contemporary Issues, "discrimination against non-RMMS workers , and arbitrary dismissals . It is these phenomena that gave ... RMMS began to lose its autocratic control over the workers . The alliance between ..."
- Also here on a scheme for illegal resale of subsidized apartments... perhaps can explain adverts like this one?
All, in all, I think there is sufficient material available to conclude that RMMS is a notable organization and that there is material for the sourcing and expansion of the article. --Soman (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mr. Soman's sources. The article must be expanded though, it contains nothing. MrMkG (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would have draftified it rather than taking it to Afd. GrabUp - Talk 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup: That's not an option for articles older than 90 days without consensus from an AfD discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh, Thanks for the information. GrabUp - Talk 01:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ without prejudice against early recreation once sources materialize, as is often the case when approaching elections. The Keep !voters did not raise a valid argument, and appear canvassed. Owen× ☎ 22:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Western Australian local elections[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted in November 2023. My rationale last time was "There have been no reforms to local government since then which might merit mentioning in this article. It is far too early for people to announce their candidacies." This is still the case. This article was created far too soon. Steelkamp (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion - it was mentioned last deletion discussion that there was no confirmed date, that has now been fixed and reliable sources added

I see no good reason why an upcoming election should not have a page once the previous election (in this case 2023) is finished

Next Australian federal election was created a couple weeks after the 2022 election, 2025 Western Australian state election was created in very early 2023, 2026 Victorian state election was created in 2023, etc

There's only about a year-and-a-half left until these elections

See also WP:FUTUREEVENT Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal elections and state elections are vastly more important than local government elections. Besides, federal elections and state elections usually have something tangible to write about soon after the previous election. That is not the case with this article, where its basically saying what the date is, and repeating a bunch of stuff from the 2023 local government election article. Steelkamp (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But at what point would you want the page created? As I said we are only about a year-and-a-half out, we know the date and coverage will eventually pop up as well

This page existing as it is with a bit of background info harms no-one Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When coverage eventually pops up. Steelkamp (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 10:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: this isn't ready for mainspace. All sources in the article bar one are primary sources and the one source that isn't primary (The Mandarin) doesn't mention when the election is and is about changes being made ahead of elections which occurred in October 2023. None of the other material is covered in an article which I would expect of the name "2025 Western Australian local elections". In short this is lacking in coverage in secondary sources. However this will happen in over a year, so best to push to draft for the time being where it can be worked on until it is ready for mainspace. TarnishedPath^talk 10:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Election is less than two years away and as arandomalt mentioned, coverage will come soon AmNowEurovision (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is standard practice for the next election to have a page created after the prior one is completed, even if there haven't been many significant developments. Additional coverage will follow soon enough. Goodebening (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: the sparseness of the article ia good indicator that it is much to early to have this in mainspace. Similar discussion of premature election coverage have appeared at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candidates of the next Australian federal election (2nd nomination) and the 1st nomination. Teraplane (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced that these articles (including the 2023 article) meet the WP:GNG. Local council elections in WA remain largely discrete events and there is very little coverage of them as a "set of elections" – which is to be expected when councils are almost uniformly nonpartisan and the majority of them have residents numbering in the hundreds. Only a handful of candidates would be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages. The article on the 2023 elections relies on primary sources for election results and then a scattering of "controversy" articles on individual candidates; I can't see the 2025 article progressing beyond this because there just isn't the coverage to expand it. ITBF (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Local elections, including Western Australian local elections, are notable enough for a statewide page and given the close proximity of the 2025 elections this page should stay Nottashaa432 (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I can't help but notice that most editors arguing to Keep are low edit or new accounts. Not sure how to factor that into a closure but I'd like to see more participation from regular AFD participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this would assist in closing this discussion but for the record if the vote opposing deletion doesn't get up I would prefer draftify as suggested by @Teraplane and @TarnishedPath Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) rather than total deletion 00:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be a keep regardless the number of keep votes because the keep rational is extremely weak. TarnishedPath^talk 00:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

This looks like a subject that could have an article on Wikipedia but with no editors arguing to Keep this version, there is really no other option here but Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robustness (morphology)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not mean the general notability policy and lacks overall reliable sources. It may also constitute original research, and violates our policy at WP:What Wikipedia is not, as the article looks like WP:DICT. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 04:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 04:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be just a definition. Can't find any relevant articles about robustness as a concept. Mgp28 (talk) 20:47, 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. Editors can create a Redirect if they believe it is appropriate but the consensus here is to Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friedenau SC Excelsior Berlin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced at the moment. The official website is dead at the moment (for me). WP:NTEAM points to WP:GNG. Significant coverage and no reliable sources (or sources at all) not established. Moved to draft twice by Wikishovel and Dan arndt, but creator has moved back to mainspace twice without substantial improvements. Not mentioned on Berlin-Liga. The corresponding German article (Sport-Excelsior Friedenau) has different information about founding, activity, kits, and other details.

Three options:

Return to draft (with WP:SALT if warranted)
Delete
Redirect to Founding Clubs of the DFB

Side note: many of the team articles from Founding Clubs of the DFB have similar issues. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Football, and Germany. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks any independent sources required to establish notability. As indicated by the nominator the article's creator refuses to leave it as a draft, where improvements could be made. Also redirecting serves no real purpose as most of the articles included in the list fail WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly something fishy going on, as Friedenau SC Excelsior Berlin was purportedly founded in 1920, at the same time being a founder of the DFB 20 years earlier. The German Wikipedia article has some history from the 1890s and states that little is known about the club after 1900. I can't confirm their playing in the Berlin-Liga, so fails WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It is difficult to assume good faith... Svartner (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Yes there's a whole raft of these unreferenced minor German club articles by same editor. I managed to source TSV Grolland sufficient to avoid a move back to draft, but tire quickly of sourcing unsourced stubs cranked out at speed. Couldn't find any RS for this one, and draft is for articles that can be improved, not indefinite parking for unsourceable articles. Wikishovel (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can lock it to draft space, what's silly is, is that MintyFresh201 was using what was technically wikipedia as a citation! Big no there. If sourced correctly I wouldn't mind the article. But in it's current state I can't disagree with the nomination for deletion. Govvy (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nominator), just an update, I started an SPI. Pinging commentors above, Dan_arndt, Geschichte, Svartner, Wikishovel, Govvy. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 00:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (author) Honestly, after reviewing the comments here and on my talk page, I also agree that the article Friedenau SC Excelsior Berlin should be deleted.

MintyFresh201 (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. A football club from amateur league with significant coverage that is difficult to find. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to comment that the topic itself seems like it could be notable, looking at German sources. If this is deleted, I have no problem if it's properly sourced and restored. SportingFlyer T·C 16:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Founding Clubs of the DFB. Giant Snowman 15:29, 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 Münchener Freiheit (band). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deuces Wild (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since 2009, and for a seemingly valid reason — a quick internet search revealed more results for a "Deuces Wild" tour done by a completely separate musical group than this band. One of its members, Stefan Zauner, already does not seem to be notable by Wikipedia standards.

The article already briefly discusses the subject's relative inactivity with its one album and two singles, neither of which were apparently successful. To me, this does not signify any importance or inherent notability as per WP:BAND while its understandable lack of coverage clearly fails WP:GNG. AviCapt (talk to me!) 03:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. AviCapt (talk to me!) 03:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Münchener Freiheit (band), where Deuces Wild is already mentioned briefly as a minor side project. That's all that is needed here because the side project achieved no notice of its own. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Münchener Freiheit (band): Agree with Doomsdayer520. It is only a non-notable one-off side project of a clearly notable band. A similar example that comes to mind is the Taiwanese band Sodagreen/Oaeen, where Oaeen is currently redirected to Sodagreen.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 20:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirens (2014 TV series)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable USA Network TV show that fails WP:GNG. Agusmagni Agusmagni Agusmagni 00:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, and United States of America.
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is another nuisance AfD nomination, just like the others from this OP. The series is clearly notable, the article has plenty of sources. Toughpigs (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I removed PROD. Has plenty of critic reviews on RT. Other reviews are also available. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found promo, listings, nothing that meets the indepth independent requirement of SIRS. // Timothy :: talk 07:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
¿Why do you should delete a page of an American show that aired on a network owned by a bigger multinational group? Agusmagni (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to sources in the article, we have: Dennis Leary brings 'Sirens' to USA review (I think from the Washington Post originally but clearly syndicated also). The sound of Sirens: Denis Leary's new comedy series from goes topless, sort of feature story/semi-review from Sun Media. 'Sirens', 'Suits' are silly and serious, story about its upcoming release. 'Sirens' an enjoyable trip to the emergency room a full page(!) positive review in the Boston Globe. Skynxnex (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skynxnex. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USA Network, not all of USA Network's shows are notable Agusmagni (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Skynxnex, in addition to the article already looking fine in its current state. A quick check of AFDStats shows nothing but controversial nominations from this user. AviCapt (talk to me!) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obvious fulfillment of WP:NTV. There are more than thirty sources currently in the article, all of which are strong and reliable sources. In addition, there are reviews from Variety[56] and Time Out [57], and coverage from Deadline[58] and The Hollywood Reporter[59] on the renewal and cancellation. There is even an interview with the series' creators from Collider, which emphasizes that the series is USA Network's first original comedy series.[60] Quite ridiculous to be even filed for deletion, in my opinion.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 20:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very clearly meets GNG. Besides the reviews already listed above, there are also reviews in Collider, Common Sense Media, The Chicago Tribune, Paste, The Orlando Sentinel, AV Club, The Boston Globe, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Deseret News, the Baltimore Sun, People Magazine, the Salt Lake Tribune, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the New York Daily News, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Newsday, the San Francisco Chronicle, The New York Times, the Philadelphia Daily News, DVD Talk, TV Guide, the Winnipeg Free Press and the Orange County Register. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hillfields[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of meeting any criterion under WP:NMUSIC or of meeting GNG. Available sources are mostly self-published or trivial mentions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:139.184.129.181 placed the following text incorrectly under my nomination: "Wikipedia states however that " Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion." From me: This is not a nomination for speedy deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only coverage I can find is the single paragraph live review in Drowned In Sound (referenced in the article). No RS reviews of any of their releases that I can find. Doesn't meet WP:BAND. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
bit of a shame you can't seem to read the Spanish articles included in the reference sections, where it states clearly the notability of the LP release in the context of the time it was released. It can't be all about charts and fame, this page is about rescuing music. If renowned DJ like Gideon Coe plays their music on BBC Radio 2 and BBC Radio 6, I'd assume it is a relevant artist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Angandi (talk • contribs) 13:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion. If it is closed as a Soft Deletion, it will just be restored the next day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability criteria of WP:BAND and almost all references just contain passing mentions or simply listings of the band. InDimensional (talk) 16:09, 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 no consensus‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehak Malik[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy WP:NBIO nor WP:NMODEL. Entirely unsourced. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The BLP previously included references, but they seem to have been deleted. However, I agree that the subject may not meet the WP:GNG. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any good sources for this individual. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The [e]ntirely unsourced claim in the OP seems to have been made based on a version of the article that existed after it had been blanked by an IP. There do seem to be sources, and I am presuming good faith about the coverage in sources written in a language I am not able to read (as notability can be provided via non-English sources). I have also found coverage of Malik in the Journal of Media Studies and the Journal of Economics. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Zueva[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Significance for WP:BIO is not visible. Typically, articles in other language sections were made by the same participant with the only interest in Wikipedia in the form of creating articles about this person.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Television, Theatre, Netherlands, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the apparent COI, all the film and TV roles appear to be bit parts, except for the short film. I'd say WP:TOOSOON. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news coverage about the subject.--Meligirl5 (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After my own research, I second Ssilvers's analysis. Can add that there are some sources [61][62] but not independent enough for the GNG. The professional guideline isn't met either. gidonb (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the the sources identified by Gidonb are valid and establish notability through GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Delete. Typical cross-wiki advertising/spam, fake sources (paid articles), does not match WP:BIO. On ru.wiki same article deleted, creator became the subject of a request to CU. Кронас (talk) 19:16, 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!} 03:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zingisa April[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of football clubs in Saudi Arabia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Najd FC[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NORG. Unsourced article, nothing found in BEFORE meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent sources. Found name mentions, routine sports mill news, listings, nothing that meets WP:SIRS. // Timothy :: talk 01:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Saudi Arabia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – To List of football clubs in Saudi Arabia. Svartner (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Saudi Arabia: The article currently don’t meet notability as no sources are available. Currently it is best to redirect as Svartner suggested. GrabUp - Talk 12:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 15:28, 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!} 03:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA Saturday Primetime on ABC results[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails GNG and WP:NLIST; there is no evidence that the results of games on the NBA Saturday Primetime on ABC series "[have] been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Nor does this list serve a valid navigational purpose; the individual games are not notable. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of (even interesting) information. Obviously a lot of work went into this page, but unfortunately I don't see any notability interest that warrants keeping it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list that can be useful as a seasonal page but it already exists. Sources are more to do with the game itself, barely about the TV coverages. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT that fails WP:LISTN. It's not even useful as trivia. Conyo14 (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN as a grouping which is not discussed in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 22:09, 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!} 03:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA Sunday Showcase on ABC results[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails GNG and WP:NLIST; there is no evidence that the results of games on the NBA Sunday Showcase "[have] been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Nor does this list serve a valid navigational purpose; the individual games are not notable. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of (even interesting) information. Obviously a lot of work went into this page, but unfortunately I don't see any notability interest that warrants keeping it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contains barely anything else other than WP:PRIMARY. A list that can be useful as a seasonal page but that already exists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT that fails WP:LISTN. It's not even useful as trivia. Conyo14 (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources discussing these results are lacking here. Fails WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 21:04, 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhuja Rajaraman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ok look, there's been a bunch of back and forth on this article, including the previous nomination being overturned from keep to no consensus. I've done some digging on the subject, and here's my conclusions:

1. This individual has not won a Guinness World Record. This appears to be a miscited claim from them saying they had submitted a world record attempt for "fastest created movie" for creating a 3 minute animated movie in 10 hours. This attempt was not recorded by the Guinness Book of World Records. In the previous nomination, it was commented by several keep voters that the 3rd source in this article is from a reliable source. Given that they have printed this very simply false claim in the second sentence, I propose it be disregarded.

2. From what I can see, this individual's appointment was by her father's friend (described as her mentor) and carried pretty limited scope of responsibilities. This article seems to explain it best - https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/bs-people-sindhuja-rajamaran-111032400058_1.html

3. WP:NEWSORGINDIA was not mentioned in the previous nomination, but I would like to comment that I think it makes this specific claim of notability extra dubious.

No ill will here, she seems like a smart woman making a good way in the world, but this marketing stunt is her *only* source of notability. It seems like it will be very difficult to write an encyclopaedic article about her because the only sources covering her are local puff pieces about how great she is. BrigadierG (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We literally just closed this less than 3 weeks ago. Let it rest for a bit. There is nothing that's changed in a month. Any "untruths" lets call them (as mentioned above), can be removed from the article by edit, not be deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion closed as no consensus which doesn't hold prejudice to renomination. Given that the most recent coverage for this individual is from 7 years ago or so, I don't think much is going to change about their notability status. At best, waiting stirs the voter pool a bit. BrigadierG (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, Comics and animation, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 25 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!} 23:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. Oh wow, the youngest person to .... Please. It's very easy when you're a nepo baby. Bearian (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Soft deletion is not an option as it was JUST at a previous AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Last nomination was one month ago. Bring it to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you think the closer made a mistake. And significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Christian75 (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might have missed the note on Last nomination --> Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 6. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 22:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 6 explicitly allowed the renom. Suggest a focus on content and not process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For my part I'm not seeing anything recent or meeting RS about this subject, and I'm not satisfied with the applied or presented sources meeting WP:BLP. Reading the DRV leads me to believe there is not much community support for keeping (as the side comments in this process might lead one to believe). BusterD (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the previous AfD found coverage spanning a period from 2011 to 2019. 8 years is too long of an "event" to invoke WP:BLP1E and the nature of the "event" in this case is not well defined. The fact that there has not been significant coverage since 2019 is not a reason to delete per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The nominator has a strong rationale as also illustrated in prev AfD. Issues of churnalism/promo remain in sources. Current GoogleSearch brings out heavy PR stuff. Would refrain form making any personal comments about the subject. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 18:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. There is a fundamental disagreement about whether any of the sources contain significant coverage of the film. Assuming arguendo that there is a consensus to not keep, there is no consensus as between deleting or merging as an ATD. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1905 (film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This film was canceled before it even began filming (like happens to many other films). This article does not meet the threshold for notability stated in WP:NFF. Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The failure of the production received a lot of significant coverage from reliable independent media. A redirect to the article about the director should be considered anyway. Absolutely opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC) (added 4 sources, there are more).[reply]
You mean that it received the same one paragraph about the production being canceled because the company being bankrupt. All valid information on the non-exiting Prenom H article or as you say, a one line mention on Kiyoshi Kurosawa's page (which it already is). Gonnym (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand your comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge into the page for either Kiyoshi Kurosawa or Tony Leung Chiu-wai. It looks like there was a short flurry of coverage about the film and its cancellation, but I don't see where there's been any true long-term coverage about this. The best I could find was this, which only gave it kind of a brief mention. The thing with cancelled productions is that the guidelines is looking for quite a lot of coverage. Even the infamous Superman Lives wasn't deemed to be notable enough for its own article. I think this could be covered in a few sentences on either Kurosawa or Leung's articles at most. Perhaps an "impact" section at Senkaku Islands dispute, if doable? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A decent example of what an article about notable cancelled film would look like sources-wise would be Akira (planned film). That's a cancelled film that's been kicking around for decades and still gets some coverage now and again, despite it being in near permanent development hell. It also survived two AfDs, although I'll note that the last one was divided on whether or not it should have its own article. Something like this film, where there's more or less just a handful of coverage, just isn't enough. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG, NFILM, nothing in article or found in BEFORE meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, keep votes provide no sources or guidelines to eval. Ping me if sources are found. // Timothy :: talk 15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added FOUR sources addressing the production and I am not sure how one could consider them unreliable nor insignificant.

Japan Today in an article titled "Atsuko Maeda's film canceled after studio goes bust due to Senkaku dispute" stated, Shooting of the film "1905," starring former AKB48 member Atsuko Maeda has been canceled after its production and distribution company filed for bankruptcy, it has been revealed.The period movie was set to star Chinese actor Tony Leung Chiu Wai, 50, Japanese actor Shota Matsuda, 27, and Maeda, 21, who was making her first movie since she "graduated" from AKB48 last summer. It was to be directed by famed horror director Kiyoshi Kurosawa.According to a Sports Nippon report, movie production and distribution house Prenom-H Co filed for bankruptcy after shooting costs rocketed. The added costs were said to be incurred as a result of the Senkaku island dispute between Japan and China. The movie was a Japan-China joint production, with 90% of the movie's dialogue spoken in Chinese dialects.Credit research company Teikoku Databank Ltd said that Prenom-H Co has received authorization to start bankruptcy proceedings from the Tokyo District Court. Prenom-H is believed to have liabilities amounting to around 643 million yen.The large-scale action production was centered around Yokohama in 1905. Filming was scheduled for both Japan and Taiwan and the movie was pencilled for release in Japan this fall.
The Hollywood Reporter in an article whose subheading is "The Japanese shingle has filed for bankruptcy amid debt related to action film "1905," which actor Tony Leung pulled out of due to the territorial spat." wrote, Distributor Prenom-H began bankruptcy proceedings in the Tokyo District Court with debts of $7 million (643 million yen) on Feb. 21, following the problems with filmmaker Kiyoshi Kurosawa‘s 1905. The project ran into trouble after Hong Kong star Tony Leungpulled out of the production last September, at the height of the China-Japan row over the Senkaku-Diayou Islands.Leung had been criticized in China for appearing in the film, which was set in Yokohama, Japan, in the year of the title, but had been scheduled to shoot in Taiwan. Financing for the Japan-China co-production was also reportedly disrupted by the political tensions between the two countries, leaving the project in limbo.
Variety in an article whose subheading is "Production delays on '1905' tips distrib over edge" wrote, Production difficulties on Japan-Hong Kong period actioner “1905,” which had been tipped for a major fest bow, has hastened the demise of its Japanese distrib Prenom H. The ongoing dispute between Japan and China over the Senkaku Islands, which touched off massive protests in China last year, has stalled the pic’s shoot, which started in November. Star Tony Leung has reportedly bailed on the project, pushing back the release and putting a crimp on financing. Starring Shota Matsuda and Atsuko Maeda, and helmed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa, the pic was set to bow in Japan in October, with Prenom H and Shochiku co-distribbing.
The Guardian in an article about the effect of the Senkaku dispute on film wrote, The big budget Sino-Japanese co-production 1905 also appears to be another victim of the ongoing dispute over the islands. Starring Hong Kong's Tony Leung, and directed by Japan's Kiyoshi Kurosawa, the period action-drama was due to start filming in Taiwan in November but has now been postponed. Leung was due to play a loan shark who ventures from Guangdong province in China to Yokohama in Japan to recover debts from a band of anti-Manchu government revolutionaries.

Feel free to also open and read the existing sources on the page, and to check the other existing sources covering the production and its notable failure.

For example, a ONE-CLICK search gives, among other things:

Plenty of other articles about 1905 exist.

Oh, and of course, the "guideline to eval" should be WP:NFF ("Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.") and/or WP:GNG ("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"), if that is really the issue in the keep vote(s) (there's only mine) mentioned in the one delete !vote above. .-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about the studio or their financial problems are not articles about the film, none of the above as SIGCOV about the film, they are passing mentions of the film while addressing other subjects. SIGCOV requires direct and indepth coverage of the subject - the film. None of the sources above meets this requirement. Disputes and problems are common and derail productions all the time, there is not indication the ones that impacted this are anything notable that merits an article. // Timothy :: talk 17:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the titles of the articles or their subheadings, then read them, thank you. Stating that they are not "SIGCOV" and only contain "passing mentions" of the film is not accurate, I am sorry. The rest of your reply is contradictory, sorry again. Disputes and problems are common and derail productions all the time, there is not indication the ones that impacted this are anything notable that merits an article....hhm, yes, there is an indication and it's precisely the coverage addressing the failure of the production directly and in depth in numerous (again, more exist, as I am sure your BEFORE has shown you) articles in very reliable media. I have no further comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I beg to differ with the merge vote from ReaderofthePack and the delete vote from Timothy.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 17:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing ReaderofthePack's comment first, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Tony Leung, and Atsuko Maeda were all leadings figures in the film, so it is unreasonable to merge the article into any one of them while neglecting the others. The examples raised, Superman Lives and Akira (planned film), are not comparable in this case. Superman Lives was only in the early stages of development, not even with a confirmed leading cast. Akira is not exactly a cancelled film, but rather stuck in development hell and production waiting to resume due to Waititi's current commitments. A recent example with a more similar context that comes to my mind is Scoob! Holiday Haunt, which also underwent pre-production but was scrapped partially due to the production company's financial issues. Scoob! Holiday Haunt still has its article retained.

Addressing Timothy's claims, I was puzzled by your statement that "articles about the studio or their financial problems are not articles about the film" and calling the above sources "passing mentions of the film". I agree with Mushy Yank's skepticism about whether you have read the sources listed above. The Indiewire and Variety sources (published in 2012) announced the film's release and provided in-depth coverage of the plot, cast, crew, and development process. Meanwhile, The Japan Times, The Guardian, and Yahoo! News (Cinema Online) sources focused on the film sparking political controversies related to the Senkaku Islands dispute and Tony Leung being labeled a traitor by the Chinese. These five sources have nothing to do with the cancellation of the film, while they are all sufficient to establish the film's notability.

In addition to the subjects discussed, I have found numerous related Chinese and Japanese sources. There are sources with in-depth coverage of Tony Leung, Atsuko Maeda, and Shota Matsuda's characters (see Elle[63]). There are also sources covering pre-production, such as reporting on Kurosawa's site visit to Taiwan for film locations (See China Times[64]), on Maeda's preparation for her character (See Wen Wei Po[65]), and on Kurosawa's plan to continue filming despite Leung's departure (See Hong Kong Economic Times[66]). Regarding the film's legacy, there are recurring mentions even though it was cancelled. When Kurosawa's cross-border project Daguerrotype entered the Golden Horse Film Festival in 2016, he was asked about 1905 in interviews and expressed the possibility of continuing the film (see Sina [67] and Liberty Times[68]). Maeda also made comments on the project in 2016 and expressed interest in reprising her role (See Natalie [69]). The language of the sources should not affect its reliability, in fact, it may even be better than English sources in this case, as the film is a Mandarin-language Japanese production.

Let's review what we have at the moment. We have in-depth coverage of the film's early development, its announcement, pre-production details such as plot, filming plans, and character descriptions, political controversies related to the Senkaku dispute, the bankruptcy of the production company, the film's cancellation, and continuous subsequent mentions about the film's potential revival. Simply put, the sources listed above amount to a dozen, and there are more available on the internet. Therefore, I don't see why WP:FFEXCEPTIONS should not be applied in this case to override WP:NFF, as the film's pre-production has demonstrated significance and clearly fulfills WP:GNG already.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 17:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I concur with @Mushy Yank and others who believe that the coverage is sufficient to pass the GNG. DCsansei (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see plenty of superficial coverage about the production difficulties, and exactly one sentence about the plot of the film. I'm not sure how that can be viewed as "significant coverage" of a movie. Owen× ☎ 22:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: What are you even talking about? The twelve sources I quoted are absolutely UNRELATED to the production difficulties. All of them are either before the production enters controversies, or after the production was scrapped. The Elle source was also entirely about the characters' biography, and multiple sources covered the proposed plot. So I also do not understand which "exactly one sentence" about the plot you saw. I am not sure how you cast the vote without even bothering to click into the sources others provided in the discussion and ignoring the argument that has long proceeded from whether there are sufficient sources, but whether it fulfills WP:FFEXCEPTIONS, which has nothing to do with the reason why the film is scrapped or how much about the film details have SIGCOV in sources, but whether the pre-production or legacy demonstrated significance and has notability. The twelve sources I provided already have SIGCOV on these two aspects, so I still don't see a reasonable basis for deletion up until this point in this discussion. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take an example: the China Times source you provided is about a different film - Daguerrotype, and only mentions 1905 in a side note: In addition, the movie 1905 he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai (Wai Tsai) as the leading actor. That's it. Is that what you call "SIGCOV"? Owen× ☎ 09:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: What's the point of taking the one source with the least coverage to argue that all sources do not have SIGCOV? Yes, the China Times, Sina, Liberty Times, and Natalie sources are all not centered around the film. Because as I mentioned, this was to show how the film continuously demonstrated significance even after production was scrapped, and I have explicitly mentioned that some are from interviews of Kurosawa's other cross-border project Daguerrotype. It was to prove that the legacy of the film had significance, which settles WP:FFEXCEPTIONS. (I believe you are well aware that not all sources cited in an article must have significant coverage on the subject, and not all sources count toward notability. So I have zero clues why you chose the China Times source as "the one example" other than trying to pick the one with the least coverage to confuse others.) What you were claiming is that the sources only have passing mentions about "the production difficulties" and "the plot". Then you should focus on sources related to these topics. So what about the Indiewire source? The Variety source? The Chicago Tribune source? The Elle source? The Wen Wei Po source? Or the sources about other aspects of the film, like the political controversies in The Japan Times source, The Guardian source, and the Yahoo! News sources? Did none of them provide SIGCOV? And what about the ones that Mushy Yank listed out (the The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and Japan Today sources)? It's sophistry to pick the one source with the least coverage and use that to argue that none of the sources have SIGCOV, while ignoring all the other sources that do demonstrate. Makes no sense to me at all. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 09:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but you claimed that all 12 sources provided significant coverage about the film. Did you not read the sources, or were you being dishonest? Owen× ☎ 09:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: You are just proving my point that your argument is sophistry. Please take a look at WP:SIGCOV. An article with SIGCOV doesn't necessarily have to focus on the main topic of the article, it only means that as long as it is not a trivial mention and addresses the topic in detail. Let's put aside whether one of the three paragraphs in the article focusing on 1905 is considered trivial or significant, even though I personally don't consider it trivial. One, it is totally fine even if the article is from an interview of the director regarding another project. Two, I was mentioning that these twelve sources were all providing significant coverage on other aspects of the film, instead of just "production difficulties" or "the plot". That's why I was telling you that all of these twelve sources provided SIGCOV regarding two specific topics - pre-production and legacy. So of course you can only find little of what you were expecting there, because you were not addressing the right topics of the sources. Besides, you were neglecting the other aspects of the film which also demonstrate its notability that the sources provided SIGCOV on. You are being even more hypocritical by explicitly naming the one source with the least coverage (length/words) about the film, and trying to attack my statement on the sources providing SIGCOV, neglecting the fact that I clearly cited this to prove FFEXCEPTIONS. At this point, I think everyone reading this discussion can tell who is being dishonest and hypocritical, and who has a valid point. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 10:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, are you claiming that In addition, the movie 1905 he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai (Wai Tsai) as the leading actor is more than a trivial mention of the film, or was your original claim that all 12 sources provide SIGCOV a lie? At this point, you have two options: (1) admit that your original assertion was incorrect, and amend it, at which point we can address your amended statement; or (2) dig your heels in deeper, and make it clear to anyone reading this that you are not above twisting the truth to push your agenda. Owen× ☎ 10:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: This is ridiculously hilarious. Alternatively, I think I have already proven to you that your assertions were wrong with my previous reply. One, the China Times source does not just have a passing mention of the film, but has a whole paragraph about it. You tried to conceal this fact with your wrongful translation (see below), and I do not agree that one out of three paragraphs of an interview is considered trivial. (especially the film was already scrapped years ago and the interview was basing on another project) Two, there is nothing wrong with citing an interview of the director in another project according to SIGCOV, so your attempts to refute the China Times, Sina, Liberty Times, and Natalie sources simply because they are interviews of Daguerrotype were wrong. Three, SIGCOV only requires the sources to address the subject topic in detail. It doesn't cover what you expect, simply because you have put the focus elsewhere. I don't see any of the twelve sources I cited failing to cover the pre-production and legacy aspects with SIGCOV. I really don't understand where your confidence came from to continue accusing me of lying, when you seem to be the liar in this case, especially with the misleading translation you provided with the China Times source. Also, I was wondering what is my "amended statement", as I have been holding on to the same one all the time, which is that I don't see why WP:FFEXCEPTIONS should not be applied in this case to override WP:NFF. By the way, this is not even my article. I am just a random passer-by. What's in it for me to be dishonest? Or what agenda could I possibly have? Assuming bad faith much? Or perhaps the real issue is that you were triggered when someone pointed out that your statements contained untrue and misleading elements. And now you are trying to turn the tables with your strawman arguments (still ridiculed by your "this one source with the least coverage mentions so few about the film, so the all other sources you cited, or the sources other users cited must also be the same") and accuse me of being the one who is dishonest, in an attempt to make yourself look more credible. This is my final reply and I will let the closing admin decide. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 11:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, although I can read Chinese, I used Google Translate to run the China Times source. There is a whole paragraph about 1905, which reads In addition, the movie "1905" he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai as the leading actor. He also came to Taiwan to scout the location, but was unable to start filming for some reason. He said regretfully: "I really want to come to Taiwan to film, of course. I also hope to find Tony Leung to act." Which argument is actually misleading here? —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 10:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prince of Erebor you've made your case, please allow others to weigh in and be mindful of Bludgeoning the discussion. Star Mississippi 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: I was confused when you said I was bludgeoning, and I just realized there were sock puppets kept on closing the discussion. I have already stated that I will let the closing admin decide. (I was just editing some typos and bolding my arguments further, as I was dissatisfied with someone who was lying accusing me of lying instead in the discussion.) I did not bludgeon. (Not implying anything or anyone specific. But it is childish if someone is trying to accuse a veteran editor on zhwiki with ten thousand edits of sockpuppetry. A simple SPI can easily prove my innocence.) (Edit: Those sockpuppets seem to belong to User:Ivanvectra. I apologize if my previous comment offended anyone. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)) —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to be clear, I know you're not a sockpuppet. You're an established editor and there's no reason for an SPI involving you. That's a bored troll disrupting AfD over the last week. The timing of the semi to stop from playing whack a sock was coincidental. Opinions may differ on bludgeoning, but I'm glad you'll leave it to a closing admin. Star Mississippi 13:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. I will just leave the discussion here then. Thanks for clarifying, Star Mississippi! —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a section to Kiyoshi Kurosawa. Although other big names were attached to the production in acting capacities, the film was Kuosawa's project, and it is not uncommon for Wikipedia to associate and list unrealized products with the director. Of course, nothing prevents it from being mentioned in other articles by reference to the section. BD2412 T 22:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudbury Downtown Master Plan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a downtown redevelopment proposal, not properly referenced as passing Wikipedia inclusion criteria. Things like this might be valid article topics if they're well-referenced, but are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- but except for one "article" (really just a reprint of a press release) in Canadian Architect magazine, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as content self-published by the city and content self-published by the Ontario Association of Architects.
And since we already have articles about Tom Davies Square, the Art Gallery of Sudbury and the Sudbury Arena — basically every noteworthy building involved here — those can already cover off virtually any content we would actually need about this. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a master plan is never notable in itself - but its accomplishments might be notable. Therefore, any notable redevelopment that may come from the master plan should be incorporated in the history section of Greater Sudbury once it has been completed and reported on in secondary reliable sources. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:13, 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 no consensus‎. I don't think all of those previous AFDs listed were on this same article subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schwein[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting as previous nomination did not attract any comment and soft deletion was not applicable. Non-notable band that only lasted one year; no sources found in English or German. Sources in Japanese linked on the page do not show WP:SIGCOV. Broc (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Japan, Germany, and United Kingdom. Broc (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should stay up. Per v, point 6, the group consists of several independently notable musicians. Weiqwbo (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comment above, but also if only because having this content in each of the individual artist pages would be redundant (which is probably the point of Wikipedia:Notability (music) #6) -- t_kiehne (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Were they big in Japan? Bearian (talk) 20:09, 29 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) 18:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – KMFDM's parallel project, I believe it has enough notability. Svartner (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep per Svartner. BD2412 T 18:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: While it is composed of notable bands, I am unable to find any significant coverage of this band or the albums. Almost all of the mentions I can find of it are just in interviews with Raymond Watts. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The entire article is an inference that notability is inherited (by participation in other bands). Nothing applied, presented, or found which meets direct detailing in reliable sources independent of the subject. BusterD (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability matters, we don't want to bloat the individual artists' pages.

The band operated mainly in Japan, or at least only performed live there so the problem with finding sources is that they would be in Japanese magazines of that time (more than twenty years ago). Which are one) hard to find nowadays, two) expensive to acquire when found, and, I suppose, three) wikipedia would knock them as sources since most of them would be featuring interviews with the band members and wikipedia considers this self-promotion (in my opinion that's not entirely relevant, if the publication is in a reputable magazine, it should count, since a reputable magazine wouldn't print about randos even if the randos paid. But what am I doing using logic here.)

Some scans of magazines can be found here:

https://tigerpal.dreamwidth.org/58976.html

https://tigerpal.dreamwidth.org/58387.html

https://tigerpal.dreamwidth.org/9790.html

Scans are probably the closest we can get to the magazines but we have to acknowledge that fans are more likely to want to preserve the musicians' own words over those of random reporters. Weiqwbo (talk) 20:57, 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 00:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Nassolo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An orphan article. A search for sources yielded just 1 hit in google news. Being the founder of "Miss Lira Beauty Pageant" is not really a claim for notability. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Uganda. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, random run of the mill nightclub owner who happened to do some work for some small scale beauty pageant. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 20:02, 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.

[1] Eriksson, Maria; Fleischer, Rasmus; Johansson, Anna; Snickars, Pelle; Vonderau, Patrick (2019). Spotify teardown: inside the black box of streaming music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262038904.

[2] Chertkow, Randy; Feehan, Jason (4 September 2018). Making Money with Music: Generate Over 100 Revenue Streams, Grow Your Fan Base, and Thrive in Today's Music Environment. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 978-1-250-19209-7.

[3] Sadler, Nick (4 July 2021). The Label Machine: How to Start, Run and Grow Your Own Independent Music Label. Velocity Press.

[1]

[2]

[3]