Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 02	May 04 >

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bharti Bharat Kamdi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Subject is only going to contest in the general elections that is to come in June, being a candidate from a party doesn't automatically pass WP:NPOL, and being a Chairperson of the Palghar Zilla Parishad doesn't pass WP:NPOL either. This is more or less too early. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Owen× ☎ 23:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOO SOON. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Maliner (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Claire 26 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Unless someone finds something newsworthy this candidate did in their local government position this is too soon until they win. Nothing here really makes notability. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Grandstaff[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Tracy Grandstaff * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Daria Morgendorffer for single character notability.
SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my vote at the RfD, the page is not suitable as a redirect to any target. Jay 💬 21:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With coverage in TV Insider, Yahoo News, Vice, and TV Insider (again), I see notability for Grandstaff. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage of someone with a fairly notable voice role Claire 26 (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is decently sourced and meets the WP:NACTOR criteria. Absolutely no point in redirecting anywhere else. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Online Film Critics' Poll[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Listicle with minimal coverage (and what it does get is from blog-type websites rather than any major news source). Violates MOS:FILMACCOLADES, specifically the sentence 'Awards bestowed by web-only entities are not generally included'. Survived an AfD in 2013 that was marred by WP:SPA activity. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Awards, and Internet. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. We don't have an article on the organisation "International Online Film Critics", so I don't know why we'd have an article on their poll. Desertarun (talk) 16:23, 26 April 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 23:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I'm confused. Is this a fork of Online Film Critics Society? Bearian (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Despite their similar names, they're two different things. The Online Film Critics Society is a notable organisation and there's plenty of coverage for it. The International Online Film Critics' Poll has no significant coverage (or its own website). Sgubaldo (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom toweli (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oladipupo Timothy Clement[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO. Sources are either passing mentions, unreliable, dependent on the subject, PRs, etc. Nothing to establish WP:BASIC here. Overall, very non-neutrally written and promotional. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO. Flowery language used in the sources doesn't fill me with hope. I don't find any that don't appear to be promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is the article promotional, the sources cited do not give an in-depth coverage of the topic. Some sources only talk about how he did this and that, or how his business did this and that. Other sources are mere "trival" and passing metions of the subject. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO to me. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is lased with PR releases and puff pieces. GNG is not meet. Best, Reading Beans 10:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly feel like this one should be speedy delete under G11. Might tag later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just did that, only for it to get reverted. Note that both links will not work if this is deleted JuniperChill (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Reading Beans. Non-notable subject. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article lacks reliable & independent sources. Also promotional language and trivial mentions raise concerns about notability. Waqar💬 17:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been totally re-written, and all necessary observations have been implemented. Thank you all. Akowe1975 (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ogaga Sakpaide[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Sources are obviously PRs, advertorials, interviews, piecs that closely relates to the subject, and passing mentions, etc. No credible claim of notability on this one. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, Internet, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article currently has about 17 references, which would mean that the editor tried to find sources on the subject. I did an online search, and I couldn't find any secondary independent reliable source. The subject doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Most of the sources used in the article are either advertorials, or most parts written in first person pronoun, "I" (in the interviews). They're not reliable. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PR sources for a PR folk—in unreliable sources. GNG is not met. Best, Reading Beans 10:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject has not been discussed in reliable sources independent of him. Majority of the article's sources are interviews he granted with a few outlets. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per ZyphorianNexus, fails GNG and ANYBIO. dxneo (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasila (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable hits online, fails WP:NFILM at this time. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only secondary coverage I can find is in Brian Larkin's Signal and Noise: Media, Infrastructure, and Urban Culture in Nigeria. Doesn't seem like enough to establish notability. hinnk (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. I ran a Google search and couldn't find a single reliable source that discusses the film. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Film lacks independent coverage in reliable sources WP:NFILM. Waqar💬 17:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. While the Keep and the Delete views are balanced by nose count, the Delete ones correctly point out that WP:NARTIST must be read in conjunction with WP:BASIC. Giving extra weight to the P&G-based views, and discarding the clearly canvassed votes, I see a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 22:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tal Slutzker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tal Slutzker (2nd nomination)

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

No significant, numerous, third-party sources can be found to support notability in general or as an artist; just a couple of interviews and one advertorial: A young artist like myriads of others. No judgement whatsoever on artistic value, this. But Wikipedia is not a complete directory of artists nor a random collection of information. -The Gnome (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Poetry, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, and possible public relations editing by the editor responsible for placing overwhelming majority of contents into that article. Graywalls (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are absent really, which is unfortunate really for a quite stellar artist. I couldn't find any of his work any major museums unfortunately. I may be early days hopefully. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough there yet, could be WP:TOOSOON BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the criteria for notability of an artist (NARTIST) is "The person's work (or works) has: ... been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" (note the singular). The article lists 6 solo exhibitions and 11 non-solo exhibitions. His he.wiki article lists 20 exhibitions and 4 books. This is quite a lot. Here is an article about an exhibition he had at the Herzliya Museum of Modern Art. Here is a newspaper article about another exhibition. In order to decide that he fails NARTIST, it is necessary to decide that none of these 20 exhibitions count as "significant". This has not been done yet on this page and I'm dubious. To me he looks quite notable. Zero^talk 16:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to his exhibition at the Herzliya Museum of Contemporary Art, Slutzker had a solo exhibition at the Tel Aviv Museum of Art, Israel's largest art museum. Coverage in multiple national publications, including Walla!News, Maariv, and Ynet also satisfy the superseding WP:NBIO. Longhornsg (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A BEFORE search did not turn up much other than social media, some primary sources, interviews (primary and light weight with some questions like "What's your cat's name?" and press-release-based coverage, but no critical analysis in major art magazines or art history books. He doesn't meet WP:NARTIST either. Having a small handful of shows, even with a couple at museums is not relevant - that's just what artists do, they show their work like hundreds of thousands of other artists. A significant exhibition is being in the Venice Biennale, or Documenta, Sao Paulo Biennial, Carnegie International, or the Whitney Biennial. Appears to be a COI entry. It appears to be WP:TOOSOON for this emerging artist, perhaps in a few more years he will be ready for an encyclopedia article. Netherzone (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply not true that "hundreds of thousands" of artists have multiple solo exhibitions. It's not like they invite themselves, they have to be invited by a gallery which considers their work significant enough to take other works of art off the wall for a while. As for what "significant exhibition" means: who says? Looking at List of Israeli visual artists, I see many articles about artists with weaker exhibition histories. It seems that existing practice in deciding notability does not impose such high standards as you do. Zero^talk 14:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you truly never heard of vanity exhibitions? (I'm not implying the same for our subject; I have no proof of any such practice.) It's similar to vanity publishing. In the country I live, as well as in a number of countries that I have visited, many a galley earns a living or compliments its living by hosting the latest masterpieces of amateur enthusiasts. I do not think badly at all about said enthusiasts. They have every right to their activities. And they contribute to the financial well-being of galleries. But, please, don't insist that all the "thousands of exhibitions" are done by gallery invitation. 'T ain't so. -The Gnome (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome is correct about the existence of vanity exhibitions, there are also thousands of pay-to-pay juried exhibits which are slightly different. An artist pays a fee to have their work considered for it, if the jury selects the artists's work, then the artist pays for shipping to and from the exhibit, and if they happen to sell work get 50% of the sales price. There are also many pay-to-play "art magazines" that are designed like actual art magazines or journals. The artist pays to have a page, or a two-page spread, or a "feature article". Native advertising and Advertorials have become wide-spread in the art world, as has Informative advertising. Netherzone (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries always take a cut for artworks sold at exhibitions, that means nothing. Between 30% and 50% is normal. I'm married to an artist (albeit in a different country) so I have first-hand experience of this. Please provide your evidence that Slutzker's solo exhibitions at the Herzliya Museum of Contemporary Art and the Tel Aviv Museum of Art were anything other than normal exhibitions. If you don't have such evidence you shouldn't make assumptions. Zero^talk 01:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly sorry to say that for a Wikipedia contributor who's been around "for more than twenty years", per your user page, you demonstrate a surprising inability to understand simple prose. The whole of Netherzone's response is about the existence of vanity exhibitions. It is simply an affirmation that vanity exhibitions do exist; that is all. No mention of our subject, his exhibitions, or Israeli museums. Yet, you scold Netherzone for "making assumptions" about Slutzker. It seems you owe an apology. -The Gnome (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor, who is admin doesn't understand current consensus for artist Afd's. The idea that they have to invited by a gallery is complete nonsense. I don't know where that idea comes. A WP:BEFORE found nothing for what a established artist would need for an article. scope_creep^Talk 17:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I'm not making assumptions, Zero, but perhaps you are? There are several editors here with long track records of work on articles about visual artists and and who have participated in many AfD's regarding the visual arts (myself included); and are very familiar with the associated notability criteria for artists. The track record of this artist is very slim, they are at the beginning stages of their career. I can say with certainty Slutzker does not meet NARTIST. This is not a reflection on Slutzker or their work or their potential, it is simply TOO SOON. The critical art historical analysis of his work is absent, which we normally see for notable artists. In a few years once they continue to build their career, they will probably be ready for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but not now. The article can always be recreated in the future once he is further along and there is better sources available. Again, I'm not saying this to disrespect the artist nor dismiss his work. WP can't be directory or resource for promoting the hundreds of thousands (yes, that's correct) of artists in the world who have had a handful of shows. The article does not have encyclopedic value. Netherzone (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, we're back to our familiar non-argument: "Wikipedia already has many articles about artists with weaker notability evidence"! When will fellow editors understand that this is actually a proposal to move Wikipedia backwards? To make the encyclopaedia worse. -The Gnome (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we should be strengthening the integrity and rigor of the encyclopedia, not loosening our standards back to the early 2000s. Netherzone (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a long reply to the details, but then I deleted it. I have better things to do than argue against this snarkiness, illogic and OWNership. Readers judge Wikipedia by what it contains, not by what it is silent on. In my opinion Wikipedia would be better with this article than without it, and you have not established otherwise. Zero^talk 09:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the many exhibitions, books, and other presentations seem enough for notability to exist. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibitions don't count. Anybody can hold an exhibition. What counts if the artists work is owned by a mainstream museum, which they are not. The books don't have any reviews. They are non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zero, the arguements convinced me that Slutzker's works are notable and meet the notability criteria. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 00:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failure of GNG. While there is one criteria of NARTIST that is met if you read it literally and narrowly, that same section says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards....conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." This, for me, is one of those situations where the narrower SNG is delivering the wrong outcome that GNG expects. Daniel (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Likely PROMO. There are no results to be found in Gnews; what's used in the article seems to be all there is. There is no listing in the Getty ULAN [1], telling me the artist isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NARTIST which lists as its fourth criterion only that "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." His work has been a substantial part of multiple significant exhibitions (coverage from the former Channel 10 (Israel)) as required by criterion 4b. It further appears exhibitions include Herzliya Museum of Contemporary Art, Israel Museum, and Tel Aviv Museum of Art. This interview describes him as "one of the most intriguing painters working in Israel today" (Google translation), this one from Yakum Tarbut mentions visiting another of his exhibits, and this one about his poetry (not sure about whether this one is a RS). In all, clear that he passes the WP:NARTIST bar and arguably also GNG but would likely require someone more versed in Hebrew to determine that. DCsansei (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The links you present, DCsansei, consist of a press release announcement from the institution presenting the show therefore primary PR/PROMO; two previews based on press releases - they are not reviews, they are announcements for upcoming shows, therefore PR/PROMO; 4 is a database - back in the day we used to call these slide registries, where an artist can submit documentation of their work themselves - user-submitted or commercial gallery-submitted content; another is pure churnalism/advertorial content, thus PROMO. None of this is serious coverage. I'm not sure if the poetry one is a reliable source or more user-submitted content, it looks sort of bloggish.

All this "coverage" amounts to is that there seems to be a public relations campaign to promote the artist, which is not the same as notability or SIGCOV. Again, let me stress that my comments is not a critique the artist's potential or creativity or character whatsoever, I'm speaking from decades of experience in the field of visual arts. Some of the editors here are misunderstanding the NARTIST criteria. There are no reviews, no chapters in art history books, no track record of his work being in multiple notable museum collections.This is an emerging artist with talent and potential for a successful career ahead of him, however, it is not the purpose of the encyclopedia to promote or advertise his work. Netherzone (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect, you are repeating the same arguments you made above which I reviewed prior to concluding that this artist likely passes the bar set in NARTIST. While you can assert that "some of the editors here are misunderstanding the NARTIST criteria", perhaps we can assume that I read the discussion above (and am literate enough to come to a reasonable understanding of the NARTIST criteria) without going back and forth with the same points repeatedly? Also, note that one of the editors you assert is misunderstanding NARTIST above is an admin so hardly a case of inexperienced editors misapplying a policy. DCsansei (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And one of the delete voters is also an admin. Having said this, it does not matter if they are an admin or not, their !vote does not hold any more weight than any other editor. Netherzone (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. Was using the fact as a counterfactual to your implication that "some editors were misunderstanding" and referencing your own credentials in the arts which I may have mistakenly viewed as trying to belittle the experience of those who are voting keep. Of course, the arguments in the !votes are what matters. DCsansei (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources. These two sources in the External links section,[2] and [3] seem the likeliest to count towards notability. Rupples (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples, sorry, but I beg to differ.

Art Market Magazine (the first link in your message) is a pay-to-play publication. [4], [5], [6]. That is not how serious art magazines work, like ARTFORUM, Art in America, ArtNews, Domus, Frieze, Apollo, Art International, Modern Painters, Parkett, etc. with critical, analytical articles written by art historians. His work has not received coverage in any serious art magazine. Any artist or gallery can submit their work to Art Market Magazine, then pay a fee for space in the "magazine" once their work is "accepted" - in other words the artist or their gallery buys either half-page, whole page, 2-page spread, or "article" on their work. It's native advertising (sponsored content, branded journalism), it is an advertorial publication. It is analogous having a vanity gallery, and is not unlike predatory journal publishing in the academic world.

The second link is a modified press release - it is a preview to announce the show, it is NOT a review. It's advance marketing. It's written in future tense: "on March 12 the exhibition will be opened", etc. These types of press release-based previews are to advertise the product (the art) by the gallery. It's PR, PROMO - promotional advance advertising masquerading as journalism. This has become much more prevalent in recent years.

Again, this is not a reflection on the artist or their work, it is simply too soon in the artist's brief career for there to be serious SIGCOV on his work. Netherzone (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, missed that aspect of Art Market Magazine, so thanks for pointing it out. The Maariv source does provide a portrayal of the artist, but it's brief. Could be PR, not entirely sure, and in any event needs more coverage to pass the GNG. Rupples (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Jerusalem Post articles via Proquest give further coverage of Slutzker. This one counts towards notability.[7] His work being exhibited in two notable museums Herzliya & Tel Aviv MoA is indicative of notability. Would like to see coverage outside the Jerusalem Post. The other sources in the article/in this discussion don't cut it as far as notability is concerned, so as of now I'm neutral. Rupples (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some info and sources. SigTif (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See WP:PRESERVE.Baculur (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: not included for whatever reason at the top of the article, but the [AFD] seems to have dug up some significant coverage that has not been mentioned here. One editor notes that they found "2000, 2006 and 2011 articles from the Jerusalem Post [that] are long profile/feature articles about this artist" on Proquest. They also note that a "gNews search on his name in Hebrew [2] brings up stories about him in major Israeli dailes: Haaretz, Maariv (newspaper) and Yedioth Ahronoth" along with some shows that we have not mentioned here further reinforcing WP:NARTIST. DCsansei (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medtral[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company for medical tourism. Discussed at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board that it was set up by an SPA for promotional reasons. First AfD in 2009 closed as no consensus. Schwede 66 20:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New Zealand. Schwede 66 20:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotion for an apparently defunct company. The website listed in the article (www.medtral.com) is dead, and a search for Medtral on www.mercyascot.co.nz returns nothing. I was the nominator for the first AfD for this article.-Gadfium (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly promotional. Citations establish existence not notability. Appears to fail SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SPA creation. A search on business.govt.nz indicates that Medtral Limited has been removed from the register and is thus defunct. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of a functioning website strongly supports deletion as the article appears promotional and lacks notability. Waqar💬 17:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 23:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Lionetta[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced article, nothing of notability in the text and no coverage online. InDimensional (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I did a quick search on La Stampa's historical archive (which I highly recommend) and it returned a few hits: 1, an interview dated July 1982, on the release of their second album; 2, a short profile dated November 1982; 3, a concert profile dated June 1999 (which makes me wonder why the article says they broke up in 1987). There's also a profile on the website of Buccheri's council website (it looks dated, but it is the council website!). To me, these results suggest there are likely sufficient offline/historical sources to sustain an article. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add the Buccheri profile link: it's here! On reflection, this seems to be part of an advertisement for a 2004 concert, so I don't think it can contribute to establishing notability as a non-independent source, assuming the council had any involvement in the concert. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A search on Google Books seems to return some hits/mentions in the context of Italian folk revival music; this seems indicative of a longer profile as a book chapter. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Those sources do not adequately support notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources newspaper and book sources identified above by Ignatius that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Onouye[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Writing a few non-notable books doesn't really make you notable, especially as not scientific or media sources seem to exist. It's been 14 years since the issue has been raised. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. I missed this, but the first nomination closed as no consensus. Frankly, I feel the delete case is stronger here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I still don't see anything we could use for sourcing, same as the last time this came to AfD in January. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Delete as per points raised by Allan Nonymous below. Qflib (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Keep. As I mentioned last time: "the page needs improvement but should be kept. This is an educator who has spent most of his professional career in architectural practice in an impactful way within the city of Seattle; see C7 of WP:NPROF...a distinguished chair and an annual studio have been named in his honor at the University of Washington, which are closely connected to C5 of WP:NPROF." This last has to be highlighted; an R1 university has established a named chair in his honor. That doesn't happen every day. Usually it happens as a memorial after someone passes away (he's still kicking) or the individual himself makes a donation to fund the chair (no evidence of that). The subject is academically notable and the page should be expanded on, not deleted.Qflib (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C7, is a pretty clear fail, given his lack of any news articles, and uh... the endowed chair seems to have been a donation by a former student of his [8], so not sure that really fits C5. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That being the case, I’ll change my recommendation. Qflib (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be. I thought the name chair would be important but not for a former student. scope_creep^Talk 09:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Uruguay national rugby union players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mateo Perillo[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 Uruguayan rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were trivial mentions (2022, 2023, 2024, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Uruguay. JTtheOG (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Uruguay national rugby union players Struggling to find coverage, but from other Uruguayan player examples it has been difficult to find online sources, redirect is a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Uruguay national rugby union players. BLP. Fails GNG and NBIO. The sources in the article do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing meeting WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 09:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 20:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Bablu Sharma[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and generally fails WP:GNG. Zero out of the current sources provide WP:SIGCOV, hence, fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The politician who has never been elected as an MLA or MP. Holding a position as a municipal councilor doesn't meet the criteria outlined in WP:NPOL. Moreover, the cited sources lack reliability and fail to provide in-depth coverage of the individual which eventually fails WP:GNG. Grabup (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Uruguay national rugby union players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Iruleguy[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 Uruguayan rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. It seems like he made a single appearance for his respective national team in 2020 and he no longer plays on any club team. JTtheOG (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Uruguay. JTtheOG (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Uruguay national rugby union players Struggling to find coverage, but from other Uruguayan player examples it has been difficult to find online sources, redirect is a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thushar Vellappally[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, coverage seems to relate to his candidacy in the current Indian election. No sourcing to support claims of being a philanthropist. AusLondonder (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Kerala. AusLondonder (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election for his constituency is completed on April 24, 2024 and this is not for the election. Just starting the page for adding more information. He is a notable politician and lot of political controversies are reported in the news. Links are added.(talk)

Delete: Similar to other adfs, there has been a proliferation of premature articles regarding candidates for the 2024 Indian General Elections. Like this individual, they too fall short of meeting the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Since they have not yet been elected as Members of Parliament, the news reports solely focus on their candidacy. Some similar other AFDs: Kompella Madhavi Latha and Neeraj Tripathi. Grabup (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable politican, fails WP:NPOL, can be re-evaluated if candidate gains place in legislature to satisfy the presumed qualities of NPOL. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
more citation is added to indicate the notability. Mettleboy (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retain : More reference were added to emphasize the notability. Mettleboy (talk)

Delete This page is an election candidate only, no proof of victory, and does not specify otherwise, Fails WP:POLITICIAN~~ Spworld2 talk 01:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fujifilm FinePix. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FinePix Z5fd[edit]

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

Not sure this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect with Fujifilm FinePix. There seems to be a lot of cleanup needed for that line of cameras, though. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Cavarrone 19:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anoosha Syed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

So back in 2019, this BLP was a nom. for deletion and the consensus was to move this BLP to the draft NS, but it wasn't executed. Five years have passed since then. Upon conducting a quick Google search, it seems that the subject still doesn't meet the basic WP:GNG. Most of her work doesn't meet the standards for WP:N so she fails WP:NCREATIVE as well. Despite receiving Asian/Pacific American Awards for Literature, it's not adequate to establish WP:N. Therefore, it seems appropriate to proceed with deletion for now. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and Canada. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article; it clearly fails to meet WP:N --Crosji (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anoosha Syed has had a number of books published by large presses, with reviews of these works in places such as Publishers Weekly (link 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6), Kirkus Reviews (links 1, 2, 3 plus more here), School Library Journal (starred review plus more on site, along with being covered in articles such as this one), and more than a hundred other reviews that can be found through the Wikipedia Library. In addition, there are articles and interviews focused on the subject and her works such as these (link 1 and 2). And that is not even all of the coverage out there. Syed easily meets the WP:Author notability guidelines as a creative professional who has "won significant critical attention." --SouthernNights (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SouthernNights explanation above. — Maile (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GNG and the rationale presented by SouthernNights. Lots of book reviews. Netherzone (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to withdraw this nom because I think @SouthernNights has a valid point. I must admit I'm not great with sources that aren't related to Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Roxas City#Education. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Alberto Villarruz College[edit]

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

Former school with little to no coverage. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:30, 3 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) 15:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Roxas_City#Education per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Spiegel[edit]

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

I can find nothing to indicate they pass WP:NBASIC or WP:GNG. They appear to be just another politician who stood for election but were not elected. There is no Finnish article or any mentions on Finnish Wikipedia of them that I can find. There used to be a Russian version but that was deleted. KylieTastic (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, Finland, and Russia. KylieTastic (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:NPOL. Just being an unelected candidate for office does not guarantee notability. I cannot find enough independent, substantive coverage about the subject. Fails Wikipedia:GNG. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Party of Humanists. Owen× ☎ 22:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lasse Schäfer[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL for not being the MP, and fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO generally. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Germany. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither being an unsuccessful election candidate nor being organizational chair of a minor political party constitutes an automatic notability freebie that would guarantee a Wikipedia article — but this is referenced almost entirely to directly-affiliated primary sources that are not support for notability, and the only citation to media is just a photograph of him rather than a news article about him, and this isn't adding any GNG points either. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As already ruled out by User:Espresso Addict a chair of an party with over thousands of member was, is and will constitutes an automatic notability. I find it especially disturbing that the person who opened the deletion called Lasse as an 'unsuccessful election candidate', clearly breaking the political neutrality of wikipedia. Additionally this deletion request comes now few weeks before the EU election fueling my suspicion. With that in mind, if one criticises the neutrality of the references, that's fine but its no reason to delete the article in question. G Utopia (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As @G Utopia already mentioned, this party is very active with more than 2000 members in every federal state of Germany, even though they haven't won any elections yet. The current election for the European Parliament also runs until the 9th of July, and it feels wrong to delete an article of a candidate and chairman of a party that is currently running in democratic elections. Mcaraggiu (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not exist to be a repository of campaign brochures for current candidates. We're writing history here, not news, so the basis for an article is not "is he in the current news cycle today?" — it's "has he achieved something that people will still be looking for information about in the 2030s and 2040s and 2050s?"
So we have an established consensus that a person has to win the election and thereby hold the office to become encyclopedically notable as a politician, and simply being a candidate in an election to an office that the person has not already held in the past does not constitute permanent notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete leaders of political parties must pass GNG since there is no assumption they will have been reported on as a member of a democratically elected legislature, and he does not. Most of the links are to the party's page, and the one that isn't is a link to an under 14 basketball team showing he is the trainer. SportingFlyer T·C 06:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Party of Humanists, where he is mentioned, and which is the context where people would want to gain information about him. Geschichte (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Party of Humanists, as an AtD. Fails GNG and NBIO. This might be a case of TOOSOON, if it is the material can develop at the target and be split and the history will be preserved. I'm not seeing material that would improve the target if merged. // Timothy :: talk 15:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Fails WP:NLIST — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports teams named Trojans[edit]

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

Non-notable grouping that fails to meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful for navigational purposes as a split from Trojan (disambiguation). Someone searching "Trojans" is likely looking for a sports team, given that it is a popular mascot. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources cited, let alone any that discuss the topic of the list as a group. I can find user wikis and database-type articles listing teams named Trojans but nothing close to RS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trojan, keeping only those entries whose teams have dedicated articles. Otherwise this doesn't meet WP:NLIST and opens up a WP:PANDORA's box of similar lists. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is not an article that meets WP:LISTN in its own regard. For navigation purposes, only the sports teams or college sports that use the name more notably such as USC Trojans and the non-scholastic teams should be placed into the DAB page. Conyo14 (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable grouping -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tappytoon[edit]

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

This article about a Web fails Wikipedia:Notability (Web); Because it did not meet the conditions for notability. The company's history, adaptation, awards and nomination, etc. were not introduced. Also, there are no articles that can attract attention. It should be deleted or redirected to the list of webtoon sites in Korea. Hkm5420 (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Webcomics and South Korea. Hkm5420 (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Lots of reliable sources have covered TappyToon in their online publications. See The Escapist, Heidi MacDonald's The Beat, BusinessKorea (not personally familiar with it tho), Yahoo, plus release listings like The Korea Herald and The Mary Sue. Are there problems with the sources available here? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:52, 26 April 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, Shadow311 (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Haven’t done a BEFORE check yet, but every source shared by Maplestrip other than the Escapist is a reprinted press release Mach61 13:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 David Gilmour. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barn Jams[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Popcornfud (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added plenty of sources. I don't get what your problem is. – Dyolf87 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few more. – Dyolf87 (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources you added are fan sites, which can't be used as reliable sources on Wikipedia.

The others only mention in passing the fact that David Gilmour recorded some jams in a barn a while ago. That isn't sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG — we need "significant coverage in reliable sources". Popcornfud (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to David Gilmour: Some reliable sources included, but the mentions of these sessions are very limited. There's enough that it would be worth including on Gilmour's page (which does not currently mention this), but not nearly enough for a standalone article, especially after cutting out all the fansite/unreliable coverage.

And Dyolf87, while it's great that you care about this article and brough a number of sources to it, your edit summary comment "because Popcornfud is acting like a baby" is not gonna fly. Stop that. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit of detail about the barn jams to the David Gilmour article. I agree it's worthy of mention but I don't see this amounting to more than a couple of sentences of coverage based on what we have in reliable sources. Popcornfud (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selectively) to David Gilmour - First, as far as I can tell the title Barn Jams has never been used to encapsulate these recordings as a group. The sources typically say something like "recorded during a jam in a barn at Gilmour's house", while "Barn Jam" has been added to the titles of a few tracks that were released later. So there is no precise item called Barn Jams to qualify for an encyclopedic article of its own. However, the jams in the barn have been documented as providing tracks for multiple Gilmour albums so that can be described at his page. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV2 Stars[edit]

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

Non-notable. There doesn't really appear to be anything to be said about this subject. toweli (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and New Zealand. toweli (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced article that does not demonstrate any notability. The "I got 2 babe" network ID promo receives mostly trivial mentions in one or two independent sources of varying reliability I found on Google. The group is not specifically named in any of these. There is nothing of substance here to warrant a standalone article. The network promo itself could probably be covered by a single sentence in the articles for TVNZ or the "Other media" section of I Got You Babe. Dfadden (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Network promo campaigns are incredibly unnotable and since this didn't even have the perfunctory charitable aim to get everyone together, the song isn't even notable. We've long killed mention of promo slogans and campaigns in network articles (for the most part the crufters who insist this is important have moved onto Fandom) and a mention on the song's article would be as equally pointless. Nate • (chatter) 19:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, fair enough. I'm not here to debate the notability of the promo, I just found several articles in independent sources that discussed it, as opposed to nothing at all about TV2 Stars. I'm firmly in favour of deleting this article. Dfadden (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 13:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Nu Tau[edit]

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

Highly promotional and unencyclopedic. Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education and

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. 18:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC). AusLondonder (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article continues to be improved even after winning an earlier Deletion prod that was offered, where the vote was to keep it. I fully disagree with the OP's statement that the article is "promotional" and "non-encyclopedic". It is modeled after a number of acceptable, similar Start-class articles that the Fraternity and Sorority Project continues to support and improve. The rush to delete such random Greek-letter organization articles, without a comprehensive process or rationale is harmful to Wikipedia. We track these societies, which number some 500,000, providing articles for those few who show notability with continued existence for ten years or more, and which have a regional or national presence of at least three chapters. This approach is consistent with major reference sources for this category that pre-date Wikipedia for 135 years, and which after long discussion and consensus building here, we follow. I do not know why the OP didn't alert the F&S Project of the AfD, but I have corrected that omission. Jax MN (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need secondary source coverage to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found and added a secondary source that provides significant coverage. That should suffice for proof of notability. I also did a quick copy edit that removed some of the content that was copied from their website. It is a member of the Professional Fraternity Association, making it a legitimate organization. I have not looked through campus newspapers, but am confident that more non-fraternity sources can be found based on the locations of its chapters. Rublamb (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. This is why editors should not concentrate on scoring Prods. Especially things like frats and radio stations, most would find, or already have, adequate sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G. E. Kidder Smith[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NBIO, only sources that I could find is one book from 2022 [9] (already cited extensively in the article, and authored in part by is grandson), and his obituary [10] in the NYT. Most of the contents of the article were added by one IP and do not look verifiable. His son Hopkinson Smith looks notable though. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 11:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Architecture, Photography, Military, Alabama, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Guggenheim Fellowship and an obituary (not paid death notice) in the New York Times should be enough by themselves. But (unsurprisingly for a prominent author of many books) there are also many book reviews to be found]. I found and added 28 published reviews of 8 books (multiple reviews for each), giving him an overwhelming pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the impressive expansion by David Eppstein. Aintabli (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per NAUTHOR. Thanks to David Eppstein for his work to find sources. --hroest 16:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - David Eppstein's work well establishes notability beyond any doubt. LadyofShalott 14:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 6[edit]

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

Non-notable bus route. WP:Run-of-the-mill applies here. --wooden superman 11:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see nothing notable about this bus route. Athel cb (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—non-notable and failed WP:GNG. If deletion here is the outcome, then the following (Brighton & Hove bus route 1, Brighton & Hove bus route 2, Brighton & Hove bus route 5, Brighton & Hove bus route 7, Brighton & Hove Coaster routes, Brighton & Hove Breeze routes) also need to be nominated because the sourcing is at the same level. Imzadi 1979 → 03:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same, but picked this one as a "test" as I wasn't sure I wasn't missing something. --wooden superman 09:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hi all, I created this article and the other ones and I wasn't sure if they'd pass for notability but after looking at other articles, namely the 100+ that are in Category:Bus routes in London, many of which are at a similar level of notability, I thought I'd at least create them and see. If anyone can add anything to them that would be great, but I haven't been able to find many decent sources. harrz ^talk 20:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Brighton & Hove (bus company) per WP:CHEAP. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rogério dos Santos (footballer)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability found, source is database only, Prod removed with statement that he received a yellow card for Kaunas which is not really adressing the issue at hand. A search didn't immediately provide better sources, but perhaps with different search terms better results can be had. Article in any case needs thorough cleanup, stating that he "plays" for a club which folded in 2012 is slightly outdated at best. Fram (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Lithuania, and Brazil. Fram (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. The player's career is mostly unknown (ogol.com, Soccerway). Svartner (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram:. It just means you should point out Rogério, as a footballer, pass this or not: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (sports). I simply don't have time to check Kaunas was a fully professional team or not, but at least some indication he has played for that league. While for SIGCOV, a lot of footballer even played in fully professional team in fully professional league, don't have SIGCOV. Matthew hk (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About two years ago, the "played in a professional league = automatically notable" rule has been rejected at an RFC, and football players now need SIGCOV to be kept. Fram (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment inb4 Transfermarkt is user generated, but they're usually comprehensive on things, and they say he retired in 2009 after three games for Kaunas. If anyone knows enough about Lithuanian data to verify this, the bloke is not notable at all. Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam National University station[edit]

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

The only source cited doesn't mention this station at all, could not find any others online. Please redirect to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) Toadspike (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. A reminder that train stations are not presumed notable simply because they exist (see WP:NTRAINSTATION)

2. This is, in fact, a different station from National University station in Ho Chi Minh City. Toadspike (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Vietnam. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro), which should have a better table of stations. Reywas92^Talk 14:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Little League World Series Championship Game broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Also listcruft (or WP:CRUFT). The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are YouTube links, some are not significant for a list and none of those assert notability to this list. I also advise them to start a Fandom page if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Baseball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Apache Software Foundation projects. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Ambari[edit]

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

There are references that verify its existence but nothing that shows notability under WP:GNG. Once of many forks from List of Apache Software Foundation projects. Can be redirected back to the list page as an WP:ATD but bringing to discussion in case someone is able to find better sourcing. CNMall41 (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found a couple of books that mention Ambari-Hadoop for Dummies and Hadoop in 24 Hours — Sean Brunnock (talk) 11:35, 15 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!} 00:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's some decent coverage in books and in articles found in scholar. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which references? I do see mentions (which again, verify its existence) but which references would you say contribute to notability? --CNMall41 (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Apache Software Foundation projects as nom suggested. Pretty insignificant coverage. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:15, 29 April 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Passes criteria for WP:NPROF — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leopoldo Soto Norambuena[edit]

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

Article is based entirely on work by the subject and has no evidence of third-party notability. Almost identical to article previously speedy deleted and salted as Leopoldo Soto * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I am inclined to think they may be notable, but just across the line. --Bedivere (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improve (an unusual vote). Based upon just his publication record he does not qualify (he publishes as Leopoldo Soto), and I could not verify his appointments listed in http://pppp.cl/contenido/investigador.php?varbajada=1. However, with a bit more digging I found https://www.cchen.cl/?p=7217&highlight=Leopol which has more notable information, but I am using Google to translate from Spanish. I think some more digging (and possibly improvement) is needed first by a native Spanish speaker. (Android visual editor messing up?) Ldm1954 (talk) 22:39, 11 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!} 21:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:53, 26 April 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I agree with the nom's arguments. There is a lack of independent sources that would meet WP:ANYBIO. If we're going with GNG, I'd vote delete. However, I'm a bit more hesistant in regards to this article on a WP:NPROF basis. The most recent deleted revision of the salted page mentions that they are a Fellow for the Institute of Physics. This is literally wikilinked as an example of meeting criteria #3. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, which is why I voted Improve which to me is a version of Keep. I find it very strange that the page was edited to remove key information that is an automatic #C3. While these were unsourced, removing them I consider to be very harsh. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., I just reinstated with sources the key awards that were removed. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, revised vote. After adding a few sources and restoring his FInstP he qualifies under #C3. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medixsysteme[edit]

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

Spammy promotional page written by connected WP:SPA-contributors. Does not appear to even have a functional website let alone any rs's. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and Medicine. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I'm a little surprised news actually returned zero results for once. Nothing useful in books, nothing at all in Qwant, nothing useful in ProQuest. Delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Needs a trim. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minesh Mehta[edit]

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

Written as an advert for a radiation oncologist. Possible COI edits by User:Anniyam and User:Pikar 81. GobsPint (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, Uganda, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but heavily trim. He has heavy citations for his work (WP:PROF#C1) and at some point at least appears to have held an endowed chair (#C5), the Eric Wolfe Professorship of Human Oncology at the University of Wisconsin, although the sources I can find for this are not great [11]. But the article is promotional and puffed up with non-accomplishments and non-reliable sources to the point where notability has become hard to discern. WP:DINC, but there is an argument to be made for WP:TNT here. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep per NPROF#1 based on the GS profile, h-index of 130 is clearly somebody who should have an article in Wikipedia. --hroest 16:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but heavily trim. I'll see what I can do about trimming this down and making it readable, but I agree with David Epstein. Qflib (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiljson Mandela[edit]

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

The subject is not notable. The award "Cesarica" is not at all notable to value the importance of the subject. Upon WP:BEFORE, I could find 3 articles about him, which doesn't show notability. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, and Croatia. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy enough to find widespread Croatian mainstream media coverage of this person - HRT had them on one of their music shows in 2021[12], RTL interviewed him in 2022[13] and later hired him for their 'Masked Singer' show in 2023[14], and Nova TV covered his interview in 2023[15]. There's a nationwide renown and it's a topic that might conceivably interest a few average English readers. Ultimately, if we kept Barbara Radulović back in the day, we might as well keep this. --Joy (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely strongly disagree. I second everything Joy mentioned! He is one of the most successful young Croatian musicians/rappers. With 2 Porin nominations[16][17], coverage by the 3 biggest Croatian TV channels (including interviews and participating as one of the celebrity contestants in Masked Singer) + millions of YouTube views and a lot more (I get that you couldn't find it tho, but there's def a lot of sources), I would say he is undoubtedly notable. I'm willing to expand the article soon. CroatiaElects (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily passes GNG in Croatian sources. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dayari Balbuena[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a Dominican women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Dominican Republic. JTtheOG (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Investment Advisors[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All sources provided in article are either linked to the subject (1, 5-9) or passing mentions (2-4).

User is likely COI, created a similar article in draftspace at Draft:Independent Investment Advisors which was rejected three times before they ultimately created a mainspace article directly by moving from userspace. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, and Oregon. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Credibly (company)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I guess this has been recreated—wasn't quite sure what had happened here initially, but as I was planning on commenting on the previous AFD I guess I may as well nom it. I couldn't find anything useful in my own search. Editing history of the creator also seems a bit odd but I'm not too familiar with that kind of thing. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Michigan. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at the previous AFD. The only indepth sourcing is not from reliable sources. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:02, 18 April 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 05:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Created the article as good faith. I believe the subject passes GNG on the basis of independent references. JSS24 (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith is irrelevant. To a first approximation all articles, no matter how lacking in notability they may be, are created in good faith. Athel cb (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not all articles, heh. It's possible the range p-block on the IP is just collateral though. I mean, I wouldn't bet money on it but it's possible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:16, 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!} 05:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Evidences are available to prove subject's Notability Guidelines. And passes GNG. 2409:40D0:10CE:A5F:1C4F:A30E:B72D:E5DA (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This user is currently blocked." What more is there to say? Delete. Athel cb (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore references need to meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Nothing I can find meets the criteria, mostly just PR and company announcements and profiles, all generated either by the company or regurgitating company provided/generated information, nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant coverage from reliable sources other than routine coverage. Air on White (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ per WP:SNOW. Bishonen | tålk 08:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines Flight 520[edit]

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

The definition of WP:NOTNEWS. Losing an inflatable slide mid-flight isn't something that's gonna get sustained coverage, and I know (not "I don't think", I know) it's gonna fail the ten-year test. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why not request speed delete if you mr. einstein think you know (not "i don't think", i know) that this will 100% fail that nonsense test? like those random plane crash articles from the 90's that would definitely fail that 10 year test?? GeekyAviation (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. The aircraft involved is 33 years old, this isn’t a brand new aircraft that was recently delivered. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No fatalities or serious injuries, only minor damage to the airframe, and unlikely to result in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry. I agree that this is unlikely to pass WP:10YT. Maybe this incident will maintain some traction with sensationalist sources due to a Boeing aircraft being involved, but I fully expect all reliable sources to stop covering this story long before it would be considered lasting coverage. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with everything above. If this does attract continued coverage (as unlikely as that seems) then it can be resurrected.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Incident seems unnotable. No fatalities, no injuries, just like any other minor incident. Also WP:NOTNEWS CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and New York.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run-of-the-mill incident, per WP:NOTNEWS. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i remember when you called LATAM Airlines Flight 800 a non notable incident aswell, of course you call this a run-of-the-mill incident GeekyAviation (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

seems like you are going along with everyone else and seem to not know anything about aviation, funny GeekyAviation (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are becoming disruptive. If you have legitimate rebuttals to specific arguments, then you can voice them here. Otherwise, please let this discussion run its course. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"then you can voice them here." thats literally what im doing GeekyAviation (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should actually state what’s wrong with their statements while providing clear reasons why you don’t agree whilst being respectful instead of criticizing them just because you have a different opinion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

do i look like im deleting peoples votes and not letting the discussion run? nope GeekyAviation (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have opened an SPI case into GeekyAviation. Liliana has also opened an ANI discussion regarding Geeky's rude comments. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it seems they were blocked just as I was typing this. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable minor aircraft incident, WP:NOTNEWS. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 05:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I think the NACTOR debate has been reasonably addressed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Metzger[edit]

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

This is a non notable voice actor. The article doesn't even meet WP:THREE. The only source I see is for a convention that sources one of her works.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Theatre, Comics and animation, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following more topics: Anime and manga, and Video games. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Delete: Could find no sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, the notability test for actors and actresses is not automatically passed just by listing roles, and requires the provision of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about her and her roles, but none is present here and I've had about as much luck as the above commenters at finding anything better. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails per WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, and WP:THREE. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject specific guideline for voice actors has been met. WP:NACTOR states: The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3045630/ She played one of the three Power Puff girls in all 52 episodes of Powerpuff Girls Z. She played Nya in Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu for 100 episodes. Wikipedia:Notability clearly states "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)". You don't have to do both. Also those linking to WP:THREE, kindly ready the personal essay you are linking to, it states don't list more than three sources in an AFD or no one will bother looking them over. Dream Focus 12:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test for actors isn't passed just by having acting roles. Having acting roles is literally an actor's job description, so by definition every actor has had acting roles or else they wouldn't be an actor — which in turn means that if simply having acting roles were an instant notability freebie in and of itself, then every actor who exists at all would get that freebie and no actor could ever be non-notable at all anymore.
The notability test for actors is passed by having WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them and their performances. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they had GNG coverage then they'd pass the GNG and the subject specific guidelines wouldn't need to exist. Some are notable based on their accomplishments alone, others are notable because they got coverage by the media. More than one way to prove notability exist. Dream Focus 09:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~ Subject played a significant role in all episodes of one notable work (PPGZ), voiced a primary character in the English version of all episodes of Tara Duncan (TV series), and played one character over 200 times in various iterations of Ninjago. By my reading, this is a clear pass of NACTOR, even for a voice or translation actor. User:Dream Focus and I often disagree, but we agree here WP:THREE is an essay with no relevance to this discussion, and the subject meets the SNG with lots of significant (even repeating) roles in their field. It's a BLP, so I'd like reliable sources about the person, but WP:ENT is met, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SNGs still require reliable source referencing to properly verify their passage, so claiming to pass an SNG is not in and of itself an exemption from having to have GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I spent 30 minutes this morning trying to find a single RS on the subject, and the best I did was bare mentions. When I made my keep assertion, I failed to look for RS. There's an enormous amount of entertainment content out there on the subject, but none of it seems to come from sources which are reliable and have a reputation for journalism (or fact checking). While it is true the subject is abundantly verified, I've found nothing approaching direct detailing in RS, so I'm striking my keep assertion. I apologize to other participants in this process. BusterD (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over WP:NACTOR is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's had several significant roles but there is no coverage. Bold in following quotes is added for emphasis WP:Notability (people) (which includes WP:NACTOR) states: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. WP:Notability states : Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia Even WP:NACTOR only says may be considered notable. Schazjmd (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that this article may be deleted, since "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found". I added cite needed tags to request WP:RSs, but another editor deleted them, adding more WP:OR instead. If WP:OR is added again, such as the unreferenced assertion that she voiced x number of episodes, User:Schazjmd, it will convince me that the article ought to be deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not original research. WP:OR, under primary, states:

3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

So listing information listed in the credits of the primary source, is acceptable. So she voiced Buttercup, one of the three powerpuff girls in the show Powerpuff Girls Z, so was of course credited as being in every single episode. There was not a single episode that didn't have all three girls in it. And if you want to know what year the show was on, you can just click the link to the article for it, or if you want it in this article for some reason, you can just copy it from the primary source without problems. You don't need a secondary source for something no primary source would have any possible reason to lie about. Dream Focus 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are interpreting WP:OR too narrowly. You are not offering a listing by the publisher of all the episodes showing her name, you are asking the reader to synthesize each individual episode's credits (not easily accessible) to note that her name is listed, and then count up the number of such episodes. Again, if this sort of fancruft is re-added to the article without a WP:RS, it will emphasize the paucity of coverage for this person. Is there really not a single review mentioning any of her performances? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 06:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aquarius Musikindo[edit]

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

Nothing notable, nor relevant per GNG. No SIGCOV. The author is blocked for evading the block Gavrover (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if we can verify the article's claim that it is the second largest record label in Indonesia, it's definitely worthy of inclusion. Chubbles (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's definitely the second-biggest.[18][19][20][21] WC gudang inspirasi (talk) 04:09, 23 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) 03:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One source on one page of a book is the definition of failing WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 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!} 04:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)‎ Geschichte (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle Owl[edit]

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

No indication of notability outside of the college. I am unable to find significant discussion of this mascot in independent sources. ... discospinster _talk 03:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Education, and Oregon. ... discospinster _talk 03:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Reed College. Sources are not independent. Neocorelight (Talk) 06:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, good sources improvements have been added and made since the nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 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!} 04:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to sources added last week, I've listed more potential sources to the article's Talk page (in decreasing order of value for notability), in the event others might want to add more text. Article clears the bar for WP:GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mun Kyong-nam[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 believe this is the first article on a North Korean football player that has come to AFD that the consensus decided to Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Li Chan-myung[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Redirect 1966 North Korean World Cup squad. Simione001 (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The starting goalkeeper of the historic 1966 North Korean World Cup team. Source three states that his life story is chronicled in-depth in the book 동방의　첫　축구강국; he is also known to have been featured in the documentary The Game of Their Lives ([22]), which is also highly likely significant coverage. There's also a significant source I located here from NK Chosun, which notes among other things that he later was the head coach of the national team that competed at the 1976 Summer Olympics. He also frequently seems to be mentioned in articles regarding the team and NK football, e.g. [23] and [24]. We also need to take into consideration how outrageously difficult it is to find coverage on historic North Koreans. We have a decent bit of coverage, know more exists, and know that through his "spectacular saves" (per mentioned Telegraph source) the North Korea team was able to produce one of the greatest upsets in World Cup history. This should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per sources presented by @BeanieFan11. Svartner (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Thanks to User:BeanieFan11 for actually conducting a WP:BEFORE search. Subject clearly meets GNG and SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources from BeanieFan11 above Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per BeanieFan11's valuable sources Waqar💬 18:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Jin-hyok[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jang Ok-chol[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I found were trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Basque pelota at the 1900 Summer Olympics. I question the value of this redirect given that we don't have the subject's name but I'm inclined to close discussions with ATD. Editors can always bring this to WP:RFD if you strongly object. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etchegaray (pelotari)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. It is unlikely sources can be found, as we know virtually nothing about him; not his first name, not his date and place of birth, not his date and place of death. BilledMammal (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought that there might be more on the French page, but there isn't. There is no Basque page (not that I can read Basque, but Google Translate can). Athel cb (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is there a reliable prose source asserting that Etchegaray and Maurice Durquetty did not win medals? I noticed that Wikipedia used to denote these two as silver medalists on their articles, but in 2022 the nominator removed their medals. Typically, if a team forfeits a match, they would be considered 2nd place, not absent entirely from the results. I see that the Olympics.com database only mentions the first place team, but their results (and the affiliated Olympedia) have been wrong before, i.e. see the men's marathon results discrepancy from the very same Olympics. --Habst (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if there were no third and fourth team, there were no initial rounds and the competition went straight to final, and if a team did not enter that match, how would they be considered participants? Geschichte (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Bill Mallon did list 2 participating teams, but his description of the event is fairly flimsy. There is no basis whatsoever for a biography. A mention in the event page is ample. The Olympic Games did not have the status it attained later. The pool of competitors was often completely random. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecomte (archer). Geschichte (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Basque pelota at the 1900 Summer Olympics. Barring a discovery, there's not going to be sigcov if we don't know his name. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Basque pelota at the 1900 Summer Olympics: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nano Nuclear Energy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Almost all sources are routine coverage and/or "contributor" or non-independent. Some articles about the broader technology mention the company in passing, but no real coverage of the company itself. Bestagon ⬡ 02:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Science. Bestagon ⬡ 02:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as TOOSOON to tell if this company will someday become notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing on my end either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nodar Kancheli[edit]

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

No independent notability apart from two collapsed buildings. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Architecture, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:CREATIVE #3. In addition to the two buildings mentioned in the article, he contributed to the Kolomna Speed Skating Center, per this source: [25], as well as other significant projects. E.g. he designed the dome of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour: [26]. Sufficient for a referenced stub. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Several sources discuss his work as can be found here. These are all in English. I'm sure someone who knows Russian can find a lot more than this. Considering this with the above points, I believe the subject is notable, and there is significant coverage. Aintabli (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some English references. I don't read Russian, but it sure looks like he is a Russian Brutalist architect. Check out the Druzhba Sanatorium - evidently still standing. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sanatorium "Kurpaty"

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Khachatryan[edit]

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

Boxer whose only reference is a database entry. There is a draft for a diplomat, Draft: Artur Khachatryan, which will otherwise require disambiguation. The need for disambiguation is not a reason to delete, but the lack of sports notability is Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Armenia. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's more content at the Russian and Polish wikis that should be checked. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with above comment. I'd lean to a procedural keep if those sources help demonstrate WP:N. Archives908 (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NBOX, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. The AIBA database entry shows he had 4 wins and 5 losses in his short career. His bronze medal at the European championships qualified him for the 2011 world championships where he lost his first fight (in the round of 64). I saw no significant independent coverage of him and no indication of meeting any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to have an editor review those sources at other Wikipedias and provide some concrete information or this discussion will likely close as Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources offered by the Russian and Polish articles are just database win/loss listings. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The sources in the other languages are trivial so far as I can tell and I can't find anything better. Let'srun (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ganbare Goemon Kirakira Dōchū: Boku ga Dancer ni Natta Wake[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:NGAME. Not enough coverage in reliable secondary sources. Does not need its own article. Clear friend a ^💬 02:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG, articles by reliable sources Destructoid (by staff editor see: [27]), Hardcore Gaming 101, plus Japanese language version of the article lists 2 print reviews: [28] - Mika1h (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this Italian magazine that seems to have reviewed the game: [29] - Mika1h (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a short review in a Spanish magazine: [30] - Mika1h (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above, there are several secondary sources that refer to the game. Oz346 (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very clear evidence that the article passes WP:GNG. I would suggest the nominator withdraw. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, meets GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are sources talking about the game out there, which pretty much establish that it's a notable game. It's just that the article is poorly structured but can be improved. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Awards pre-show[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. One of many pages related to Hum Awards likely created to promote Hum TV. This one can easily be included on the main Hum Awards page assuming there are references that can be found to support it. CNMall41 (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree- fails WP:GNG. The pre-show details of the Hum Awards can be covered into the relevant pages. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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