Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 07	May 09 >

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. ✗plicit 11:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Boll[edit]

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

Absolutely fails WP:NSKATE. No medal placements at senior-level competitions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - National silver medal is their best performance but WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2006_German_Figure_Skating_Championships: Note that WP:NSKATE is indicative that sigcov is likely, and is not presumptive/determinative, so someone could meet none of the NSKATE criteria but still meet WP:SPORTCRIT for some reason. That said, Boll doesn't appear to have sigcov, so redirect him to the championship where he and Kolbe got their win as an ATD. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale as WP:NSKATE is indicative that sigcov is likely, and is not presumptive/determinative, so someone could meet none of the NSKATE criteria but still meet WP:SPORTCRIT for some reason. That said, it's quite possible that most of these should be delete or redirect results. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Oppose redirect. Searches for Paul Boll find nothing on this one. There are more famous namesakes, such as Paul Boll, inventor of the Attrition Mill, or Paul Boll the late 19th century philologist. There is also an active researcher of that name. Not eligible for SK3. The issue is clearly notability, and this one is not notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Daniel (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M Group Services[edit]

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

M&A activity appears to be pretty much the totality of the available sourcing, and that is excluded from establishing notability per WP:ORGTRIV. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jemal Gokieli[edit]

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

For me, it doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. If someone could bring satisfactory sources, it would be a fair one. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Georgia (country). Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Conductor. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:ANYBIO #3 with an entry in the Biographical Dictionary of Georgia, which is itself sourced to the Encyclopedia of Georgia [ka]. Jfire (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the entry in the Biographical Dictionary of Georgia, there is an entry in Musical encyclopedic dictionary / Ch. ed. G. V. Keldysh. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1990. - p. 139 - ISBN 5-85270-033-9 (referenced in the Russian wikipedia article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:12, 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 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. Daniel (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Polish Rally Championship[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Possibly with a bit of "wp:not" thrown in for being just stats. I would like to request a thorough / longer review of this because it is an example of many sitting in the que that I've been avoiding reviewing and this might help provide guidance. "Stats only" sources for a "stats only" article. (although this is at the "better end" of that spectrum because the stats has more info than just who won) And on a topic which is not given presumed notability by the SNG. Has no GNG sources. Unable to find GNG sources for the topic, mostly likely because they are unlikely to exist. Of course non-GNG coverage of events within the topic exists, but that misses by two criteria (not about the topic of the article and not GNG depth). I recently posted at project sports to try to learn the lay of the land of opinion on these (i.e. whether to "bend the wp:notability rules on these) and it seems that the answer is not.

The only prose content (2 sentences) is what is already contained at the higher level Polish Rally Championship article. North8000 (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Motorsport, and Poland. Skynxnex (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 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!} 03:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jord Engineers India[edit]

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

This company article is missing a reliable source to establish notability. The only reference is a dead link. After searching, found social media and sales websites, but no comprehensive, in-depth coverage of this company. Article was created by a new user on 11 July 2012, their only contribution to Wikipedia. Was PROD April 22, 2024; contested on April 27. Also, "Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7)" on 15:24, 11 July 2012. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:N, has one dead reference, and a quick Google search found only the official website and the Linkedin (of course). The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Gujarat. Skynxnex (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JoeNMLC, plus this very well could be an ad Claire 26 (talk) 08:55, 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!} 03:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

György Beck[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. A silver or bronze medal at the national championships do not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Hungary. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSKATE's clear criteria BrigadierG (talk) 23:27, 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. If editors believe a deletion nomination is faulty, please present a strong Keep argument which didn't happen here. Instead, there was doubt expressed about the nomination but that's not the same as a policy-based argument. And, as an aside, probably close to 100 similar articles on skaters, most competing at the Junior level, have been deleted by PROD over the last 6-8 weeks so if this "cleaning up process" is a concern to you, you'll have to look further back to articles that were already deleted in April and May. I'm sure SDZeroBot maintains a list of recently PROD'd articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lilia Biktagirova[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSKATE's clear criteria BrigadierG (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NSKATE lists some very clear criteria for inclusion, which this article does not meet. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The subject is notable if it meets WP:GNG even if it fails WP:NSKATE. See this comment for a full description. No one in this discussion (including myself) has mentioned anything about searching for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG

~Kvng (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale as WP:NSKATE is indicative that sigcov is likely, and is not presumptive/determinative, so someone could meet none of the NSKATE criteria but still meet WP:SPORTCRIT for some reason. And votes relying only on NSKATE are likewise invalid. That said, it's quite possible that most of these should be delete or redirect results. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Bińczyk[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSKATE's clear criteria BrigadierG (talk) 23:27, 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!} 03:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucie-Anne Blazek[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Switzerland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSKATE's clear criteria BrigadierG (talk) 23:28, 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 redirect‎ to Dutch Amateur Championship (snooker). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerrit bij de Leij[edit]

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

Amateur player that isn't a particularly notable player. Best result is a last-32 in the world amateur championship. Fails GNG Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cue sports and Netherlands. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dutch Amateur Championship (snooker) as ATD and CHEAP. gidonb (talk) 02:59, 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!} 03:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yediel Canton[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Spain. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSKATE Claire 26 (talk) 08:57, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Defunct micro-denomination that existed for less than 10 years. It is not included in any of the authoritative encyclopedic sources (e.g. Melton). Can find no sources to establish notability under GNG or NORG. Existing sources in the article are unreliable or unverifiable. My analysis follows:

Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages
Link - Primary source
Banner of Truth magazine. This magazine is not available online (see here) and thus this citation is unverifiable.
British Church Newspaper. Likewise unavailable online and thus unverifiable.
Link - Primary source
Link - Discussion board; user-generated content.
Link - Primary source
Link - Primary source
Link - Primary source
Link - Self-published primary source

During the 2006 AfD, which resulted in no consensus, those arguing for "keep" tended not to make policy-based arguments. Additionally, they specifically pointed to the British Church Newspaper and Banner of Truth Magazine citations as proving notability. After 18 years, however, these publications remain unavailable online (including in the Internet Archive) and thus cannot be verified. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Invalid reasoning. A source that is not online remains verifiable by a trip to a library. Dead-tree sources are perfectly legitimate. And a denomination being defunct really doesn't matter. If it was notable once, it remains notabvle. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the 2006 discussion, this is the full text in one of the dead-tree sources: "On January 13-14, 2006, a new Presbyterian denomination was formed. During delegate meetings in Philadelphia, PA, the body adopted the name Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (WPCUS). The founding churches came together because of perceived equivocation towards important biblical doctines and because of tolerance of excesses in contemporary worship in other Presbyterian denominations." Sounds like WP:TRIVIALMENTION to me. I've made every effort to verify its existence; however, the comprehensive Banner of Truth magazine archive does not include this citation (see page 99, where no such article is referenced in the April 2006 issue). The WP:BURDEN is on the editor who added the material to add a verifiable, reliable source, and this isn't. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 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) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. The sources are either a walled garden type or passing mentions in directories. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This new denomination was an admin action by 7 churches. They changed their name and 10-15 years later changed it again. The refs don't stack up to notability. Desertarun (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Findlay[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and France. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- Even before performing a WP:BEFORE search, the three sources already in the article pass WP:GNG. Here are the archived versions for reference: GoldenSkate, Sault Star, SkateToday. A quick search also turns up Whitehorse Daily Star, SooToday, more Sault Star, etc. JTtheOG (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JT, sources pass GNG. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:43, 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!} 23:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources from JTtheOG show this subject has the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ina Demireva[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Bulgaria. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. This deletion proposal was made in error. Subject has a gold medal win at the 2008 Bulgarian Championships. My apologies for this oversight. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kvng, please consider withdrawing your delete vote so I can close this as a speedy keep. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone found any sources indicating the subject meets WP:GNG? The victory in 2008 was unopposed. I now appreciate that WP:NSKATE is only an indication of potential notability - Significant coverage is likely to exist for figure skating figures if they. What really matters is WP:42. ~Kvng (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a WP:BEFORE search of English sources and did not find any significant coverage. Maybe a Bulgarian search is required but I'll leave my !vote as it is for now. ~Kvng (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably correct. I will strike my request and leave the AFD to proceed as normal. Thank you for your input. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commitment control[edit]

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

PROD'ded with reason: 'Unreferenced article with ambiguous title.' This wasn't considered clear enough, which I understand. I don't think this topic is a clear topic - 'commitment control' can mean a few things. I couldn't find sources to show this is a notable, clear concept. Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find certain references to this as a concept in financial management ([1]) or a solution within Oracle's PeopleSoft product ([2], in which case it belongs in that article. Nothing else and nothing specific to the retail industry. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find sufficient sources for this concept to meet the WP:GNG. Article has been tagged for having no sources since 2009. Let'srun (talk) 17:41, 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 Newspapers of Sunnmøre#Indre Søre Sunnmøre. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synste Møre[edit]

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:N; average local newspaper, no particular significance. Boleyn (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Boleyn. Merge to a new article newspapers in Sunnmøre. Here, the lesser newspapers in Sunnmøre would be chronicled. A similar solution was brought up during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbeidernes blad (2nd nomination), which was merged to a target I deem dissatisfactory, of course because newspapers in Sunnmøre doesn't exist (an article about historical newspapers in Ålesund was suggested, but that's just one of the cities in Sunnmøre). I would also merge a lot of other stubs there: the extant Nordre, Møre-Nytt, Bygdebladet, Nytt i uka, Vikebladet Vestposten as well as historical newspapers such as Arbeidernes blad, Aalesunds Socialdemokrat, Møre Arbeiderblad, etc. There are a lot of permastubs here, which are all pretty useless on their own. Geschichte (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Boleyn. I now started the broader article, would you agree to a speedy merge? I will use the Store norske leksikon [3] to verify any facts before finalizing the merger. Geschichte (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merge sounds fine, Geschichte, my only concern is that the article is completely unsourced, so it would only be unsourced info merged, but that could maybe be addressed in time. Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just to clarify, is Newspapers of Sunnmøre the proposed Merge target article? The page mentioned in the discussion is a redirect page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Newspapers of Sunnmøre#Indre Søre Sunnmøre. There was nothing to merge, really, but I wrote a paragraph from scratch about this newspaper with the source I mentioned earlier. Geschichte (talk) 07:33, 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. After 3 weeks of AfD, the article is still entirely unsourced, so there can be no other outcome. Sandstein 12:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belg der Belgen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No refs on the page for many years. Appears to be a newspaper poll (rather than similar pages on Belgian TV shows) with little to suggest that notability has been shown to the inclusion standards JMWt (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Belgium. JMWt (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

with respect to the 2011 AfD, I would say that the fact no sources have been added between then and now suggests that there aren't any to find. Hence not notable. JMWt (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A major competition of Het Nieuwsblad, the second newspaper of Belgium in readership, falling just short of Het Laatste Nieuws. Nomination is focused on references in the article, unjustifiably circumventing the golden WP:NEXIST rule. gidonb (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The following are articles entirely on the competition.[4] [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Important to add that the interest is continuous and the results of the Belg der Belgen are often referenced since. gidonb (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. If no more participation, this discussion will likely close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Het Nieuwsblad. Each and every source applied and suggested are from the newspaper creating the poll, so of course they're covering it every time. It's a promotion by the journal. Nothing independent or reliable applied. A newspaper might proclaim anybody anything they like, but if nobody else covered it, Wikipedia doesn't either. BusterD (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Hornsea Museum (selectively) and then redirect. Daniel (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holderness museums[edit]

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

Unclear what this article is even about. Mentions one small archive, without a claim to notability, shared across the 3 museums that aren't otherwise tied together. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, History, and United Kingdom. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This BBC reference explains the oral history project. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting coincidence that the project officer's name in that link is so similar the article creator. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its a project or scheme to record oral histories. Its not encyclopaedic. I searched and looked for sources but there's nothing I can find. Desertarun (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selectively merge into Hornsea Museum, or vice versa. They are one and the same registered charity. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge as suggested by Bearian, specifically into Hornsea Museum, because IMHO the museum page clearly describes a specific and notable physical location already with cited pagespace. We can clearly verify Hornsea Museum. If a demonstrated connection between all three can be shown in reliable sources, I'd be happy to see this namespace recreated as describing that organization, including detail of all related locations. BusterD (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as fair option. Agletarang (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article, especially after a little clean up has been done by the nominator and discussion participants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption College, Kilmore[edit]

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

Cassiopeia talk 22:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Australia. Cassiopeia talk 22:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subject fails GNG to meet significant coverage from independent, reliable source where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in dept and not passing mentioned or verification.

Most of the sources are primary (assumption college or its founder Marist Brothers). Sources are not from Assumption College or Marist Brothers are the "Notable alumni " section where by - source -1, - source 2 and source-3 only mentioned the alumni members and not mentioned about Assumption college in length or in depth and info are part interview pieces which makes it not independent. source-4 is football club which is not reliable source. source-5 is football organization which is not a reliable source. Section on "Assumption College VCE results 2012-2020" - source -5 is from private company which makes it not reliable. Section on "Sporting achievements" which does not mention Assumption college and the the article is partially interview piece which makes it not independent.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On the face of it this is a significant sized school and at the older end of all Australian schools. Not the oldest but a venerable institution. It has significant web presence, but like the concerns about sourcing on the page, much of that is not independent. There are three books about the school on the page that are not discussed above. However, one of these is published by the school, and the other two by a Kilmore publisher so independence is questionable. Yet a school that is publishing volumes about its history is still unusual in itself. Add to that very considerable sustained newspaper coverage, including a lot in The Age. The Age is an Australian newspaper of record, and a reliable source. Much of the coverage is primary, but again, 125 years of coverage is certainly not to be sniffed at. Then it gets mentioned in multiple books that are independent. E.g. [15], [16], [17], [18]. Although passing mentions don't help much, there is more significant coverage in some of these, and again, the very fact it gets mentioned so much indicates a level of significance. This looks like a GNG pass to me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy, This is Wikipedia and an article needs to pass the notability requirements to have a page in Wikipedia and it is NOT about how old and institution it has been operation or the unusual the history of the school. Primary sources can NOT be used to contribute to the notability requirements. Your sources [19], [20] - is a primary source; [21] is about the owners of the school and not about the school and it is just a book cover which does not indicated it cover the school in detail or in length; [22] is about Research Methodology and Research Results in Catholic Schools in Victoria, Australia and not about the school itself and lastly [23] is about Two Centuries of Surgery in Papua New Guinea not about the school itself. As you have mentioned, they are all passing mentioned which do not pass the notability requirements of Wikpedia. Cassiopeia talk 02:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is in my nature to draw attention to the weaknesses of the sources I present at AfD as part of a rounded argument. My drawing attention to the fact that many sources are primary therefore is a demonstration of familiarity with the guidelines, not unfamiliarity. But I note that your nom. statement only discusses the sources in the article (and misses the three books) and does not take into account the huge number of sources shown up in the linked searches (Google/books/news/scholar) and in newspaper archives. Looking at that, and at the detail here, that this is a very large and very old school, with sustained coverage and an actual history book written about it that has been accessioned by the National Library of Australia [24] - which book is already linked on the page, and which tells us it is noted for academic and sporting prowess and was one of the largest country boarding schools in Australia - I personally would not even have considered nominating this article after a WP:BEFORE. It does need cleanup, but AfD is not for that. Very clearly notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your last source is good but not the last 4 including the 3 books where the books are not talking about the subject but part of it, further more, you provide the book name and not the info of the book about the subject. If you can point to the page where we can read the info and verify significant coverage is in place then that is the different story but not because the old established of the subject as the means to pass the notability. To say this, it is unfortunate many colleges/educational institute or in the matter of the fact academics do not have a page in Wikipedia because of only primary sources covered them. Cassiopeia talk 08:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So again, I already highlighted the issue with passing mentions in the 4 books I highlighted (but remember that a book or article does not have to be about the subject to count towards notability). The point was not to say that those themselves were the best sources - the point is that on the face of it, there is not a snowball's chance that a school with this level of attention, coverage and mentions will fail to meet GNG. And I didn't just provide the name of that book, I provided its full bibliographic record at the National Library of Australia, which also includes an ISBN number. Not that this is strictly necessary, because that book is already listed on the page. I don't need to provide a page number - the whole book is a history of the school. I don't have it. It was published in 1976, and I do not think there is an electronic copy. Recall that sources do not need to be on the page, nor do they need to be available electronically to count towards notability. They merely must exist, and this book exists). However the information I was able to ascertain about the book can be seen on this ebay listing: [25] Very handy that they show us the synopsis and the contents pages. And it doesn't stop there. I made the case I did to save the necessity to trawl through 2,481 newspaper articles mentioning the school. But if you were to search Newspapers.com in the Wikipedia library, the very first page of hits would show up this thorough article[26] which would count as reliable (the Age is a reliable paper of record) with independent secondary coverage, a full page spread certainly being significant. There are other papers too that discuss the school [27], but more significantly, articles in The Age about their sporting prowess, this being just one example.[28] This school is notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do agree the article in its current state is promotional and relies mostly on primary sources. However, under WP:ARTN, Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. On Talk:Assumption College, Kilmore, I've listed four RS (and two more passing mentions from alums that might help balance the tone of the article). The subject meets WP:GNG, even though the article needs an overhaul. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I revised the article substantially to remove the promotional language and reorganize the "team of the century" table but did not have time to add the potential sources listed on the talk page. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to User:Sirfurboy for sources added to Talk:Assumption College, Kilmore. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabra mosque airstrike[edit]

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

Atrociously sourced article. The only sources are Hamas's military wing and the PA's state-run news agency, with the other citations simply regurgitating these reports. No WP:SUSTAINED coverage in multiple independent WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. Also fails WP:PAGEDECIDE justifying its own article. If the only sources of information for an article were the IDF and the Israeli Ministry of Communications, we would rightly AfD that article as well. Longhornsg (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Longhornsg (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG, NEVENT, NOTNEWS, WP:SUSTAINED. // Timothy :: talk 23:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (alternatively merge) per nom FortunateSons (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on news event. No lasting coverage is speculated. X (talk) 19:56, 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 Adam Rifkin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last Train To Fortune[edit]

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

I can't find much to say this article do meet WP:NFILMS. Redirect can be better just that I can't find where. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article almost certainly doesn't meet WP:NFILMS, especially since the movie is yet to be released. Even if the film does end up being notable, its too soon to tell, since the film has not actually been seen by the public at this point. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adam Rifkin: director (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/malcolm-mcdowell-mary-steenburgen-bernadette-201026413.html) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NFILM. Unreleased, nothing notable about production. Single source in article does not meet WP:SIRS, BEFORE found very little, nothing meeting SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth. Article itself is fancrufty WP:PLOTONLY. Ping me if WP:SIRS is found. // Timothy :: talk 18:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keanu Apperley[edit]

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

English-born Italian-New Zealander rugby player that fails WP:GNG. All I found were routine transactional announcements like 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, Italy, England, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of coverage, but I don't think any of it is sufficient enough to suggest a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:54, 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!} 22:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Engelbrecht[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found was five sentences of coverage here and five-ish sentences here. The latter might not be fully independent, either, since there is a contact number at the bottom to someone with a direct connection to the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage to suggest a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:51, 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!} 22:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selom Gavor[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. It seems like he went on to captain the Ghana national rugby sevens team, but the coverage from that is not sufficient either (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bit of coverage of his career in SA and Ghana, but not enough to pass WP:GNG I don't think. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:50, 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!} 22:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Chandler, Arizona, mayoral election[edit]

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

Notability issues Okmrman (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Amazing this even exists. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:25, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sihle Njezula[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were four-ish sentences of coverage here and three sentences here, but nothing in-depth or sustained. JTtheOG (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Career has never really kicked on, a fair bit of coverage but I don't think enough to pass WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:48, 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!} 22:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puddingstone Distillery[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient significant independent coverage. Uhooep (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. There are zero reliable sources. If you find two good sources, ping me. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Dale Vince. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Britain Group[edit]

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

Currently fails WP:CORP as none of the existing references constitute significant independent coverage of the company. Uhooep (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dale Vince and add a mention to the article there. It doesn't currently mention this or Ecojet, but I'm sure a sentence or two can be added mentioning both. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Booth[edit]

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP with no evidence of sustained coverage; subject made one pro appearance. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was this, which would not be enough by itself. JTtheOG (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Wales. JTtheOG (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Career hasn't really kicked on since his early appearances, other than the source nom has found struggling to find anything else suitable. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No longer involved in the pro game. No significant coverage and unlikely to see any in the future. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 13:51, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Jellett (priest)[edit]

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

No obvious notability, apart from being Dean of a Cathedral. Unsure if that position would convey notability alone. Chumpih ^t 17:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while not all deans of cathedrals are notable, the Dean of St Patrick's is a leading clergyman of the Church of Ireland. FWIW, my grandma was a member of that church. Bearian (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – For context, in Anglicanism, the dean of a cathedral tends to have a status not dissimilar from an archdeacon. In the case of the dean of the national cathedral of the Church of Ireland, notability seems highly likely, especially given the obituary in the UK's newspaper of record. Graham (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources newspaper and book sources referenced in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:01, 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Yudelman[edit]

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

This appears to be a WP:BLP1E for an otherwise non-notable postdoctoral researcher. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a slam-dunk case for deletion for that reason. 47.186.144.163 (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel, Canada, Arizona, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as the dictionary example of BLP1E. Alansohn (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NPROF looks unlikely at best, leaving only the incident at the demonstration, which is indeed a BLP1E. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear BLP1E, no other notability requirement met. FortunateSons (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is known for his research in ancient and modern political theory as well as the early modern origins of liberalism. 142.181.101.184 (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a reputable scholar. 142.181.101.184 (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- There is nothing in the article that supports his reputation or his scholarship. There is no c.v., no dissertation topic, the briefest assertion that his PhD is from Boston College, but no year, nor information about the location or possession of a BA, MA or any other academic degree. There is nothing to say how long he's been at ASU, but suggestions that he is a one term, travelling adjunct at a number of different schools. We have no way of knowing anything about him - ASU appears to have eliminated his biography, and he has eliminated his LinkedIn biography. We equally do not know what his 'research in ancient and modern political theory' is, nor what is intended by the 'early modern origins of liberalism'. The absence of all of this would tend to negate your claim of reputable scholarship.

174.18.73.211 (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GS citations are negligible. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

~~That would make him more notable. Are you arguing for a keep? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC).~~[reply]

Incubate in draftspace, as it seems coverage is picking up, so we should see if more SIGCOV arises. BhamBoi (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of him and his work or of the incident at the protest? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good points about the scope of coverage. I find it hard to believe that someone who had articles written about them in such mainstream media as USA Today, The Hill, CNN, AP, NBC, etc. wouldn't be notable, though. But this does seem to be a case of BLP1E, and policy prevails. BhamBoi (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to Keep - This is not the case for delete per BLP1E, as BLP1E states clearly that it does allows for single events to be included: "John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented."

this single event ties in to a larger story of the mass protests at this university that also ties to a much larger event of the mass protests across the world that tie to an even much larger story of the Hamas/Israel war.

Firing of a prof's for attacking students at the Uni he teaches is in, it self is a fairly notable event. It should be tied to larger event pages up the chain.

also this single event has been picked up in multiple countries by national news coverage and has evolved to the firing of the individual in question. 2604:3D08:7779:5700:78E0:EB35:6507:8B71 (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally in those cases, the article should be about the incident rather than the person. However I'm still skeptical that this incident is itself sufficiently notable for a standalone article, rather than (perhaps) a mention in Israel–Hamas war protests in the United States or a similar article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More coverage specifically of him is coming in from AZ television, Al Jazeera, Middle East Eye, the New York Daily News, another in NBC, and from other professors, so even if the coverage only centers around one event, SIGCOV is certainly present. This isn’t a new vote on whether to keep (I still vote move to draftspace), but should provide context on the coverage surrounding this man. BhamBoi (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: This incident its self now has pretty broad coverage, could it be altered so the main subject is about the incident rather than the person? What would be an example I could follow to do this and what would be the best name for the article? Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: I see you’ve been adding references to the article, note can be found under "described by source" on his Wikidata item. BhamBoi (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I suspect it's still an incident of only passing notability. I think it might be better left to a mention in Israel–Hamas war protests in the United States unless it receives enduring coverage. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Textbook WP:BLP1E. The individual is completely non-notable. The event they're known for, being fired for Islamophobic harassment, wouldn't make much sense as a standalone event article, either. The event should be roughly a few sentences in a broader article. Vanilla Wizard 💙 01:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Sydney Talker. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neville Records[edit]

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

Currently fails WP:GNG and do not qualify for a standalone entry under any music related SNG. WP:ATD-R would be the best option and the target should be the founder’s article, Sydney Talker. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an obvious merge target to the founder, so I'm not sure why it's at AfD. Chubbles (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, straightforward NCORP failure. Mach61 14:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, sound reasoning, but the WP:ANYBIO of the target subject is a little shaky. Graywalls (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to parent article. The label isn't notable and has not been discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or merge) seems fine. Doesn't seem controversial. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 00:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2026 United States Senate election in New Hampshire[edit]

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

Creating an article for an election 2 years in advance is almost certainly too soon for a wikipedia article on the subject. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United States of America, and New Hampshire. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it's probably worth mentioning that 2026 United States Senate election in Georgia, 2026 United States Senate election in Louisiana, 2026 United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2026 United States Senate election in South Carolina and 2026 United States Senate election in Texas also exist. It may be worth nominating them for deletion as well. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I mean, this is the next senate election in that state and we're close enough to it that the incumbent has announced their intent to run again, doesn't seem too soon to me. WP:TOOSOON primarily applies to events so far in the future it's not possible to write anything except a stub stating that it will happen. BrigadierG (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the election is being discussed in reliable sources and candidates are declaring their candidacies, then it is not too soon for an article.--User:Namiba 19:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BrigadierG and Nambia. Sal2100 (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. 'Nuff said.TH1980 (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Terrorism in Yemen. Star Mississippi 00:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wadi Dawan attack[edit]

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

All the coverage is from the time of the event in January 2008. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, Yemen, and Belgium. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorism in Yemen, there was some coverage the next year from Belgian publications over the perpetrators getting the death penalty for terrorism, but I don't think it's in depth enough to justify an individual article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This event article meets the requirements of the GNG, EVENT, and LASTING by plenty of coverage at the time of the event and since. For more recent coverage, see "Voice of a Voyage: Rediscovering the World During a Ten-year Circumnavigation" by Doann Houghton-Alico, from 2016, in Google Books. Not sure why this has been nominated for deletion. The research leaves to be desired. Furthermore, the merger suggested above my opinion would create a situation of undue and should also be rejected. Wadi Dawan attack is a proper SPINOFF. gidonb (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"plenty of coverage at the time of the event" does not meet WP:EFFECT and WP:NOTNEWS applies. You've found 1 source, are there others? LibStar (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is untrue. I found plenty of sourcing AND ESTABLISHED LASTING WITH AN RS! This nomination is a clear BEFORE failure! There needn't be more sources than one since 2008 because the event was less than 20 years ago. However, there are two. It also appears in The Last Good Man: A Novel, page 33, A.J. Kazinski, from 2012. Libstar, you frequently claim fact-free that events are not LASTING. Why would you do that? gidonb (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of sourcing? you've mentioned a mere 2. If this nomination is a failure it would be a unanimous keep which it isn't. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please supply actual text from the 2 books you cite? I'm interested in what it says. Thanks LibStar (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"There needn't be more sources than one since 2008 because the event was less than 20 years ago." You're now inventing rules for notability. LibStar (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of contemporaneous sourcing for the GNG. Really big numbers. Enough to visit the articles in the other wikis to see that. In addition, there is more than sufficient sourcing from books to prove that this has a LASTING impact just as well. Therefore meets the GNG and EVENT. gidonb (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please supply actual text from the 2 books you cite? LibStar (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you look in Google Books and withdraw this nomination after you do? You should have done a BEFORE upfront! gidonb (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please supply actual text from the 2 books you cite? Why can't you provide this? LibStar (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something you're hiding by not producing text as requested? LibStar (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I try to lead a life also beyond your failed nominations. Some 10 books write about this incident beyond the contemporaneous coverage that is also extensive. I gave 5 examples. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the article meets the GNG based on contemporaneous coverage and that all your fact-free nominations of terrorist incidents under your assumption that these get forgotten – this isn't so and LASTING is met. Terrorism is a real problem and these events get revisited time and again. gidonb (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS trumps GNG. Otherwise we'll be creating articles for every event reported in the media. There was a factory fire near my home, should I create an article because it meets GNG? LibStar (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or a few weeks ago, Australia's east coast received a lot of rainfall, well reported in all the media, but why isn't there a Wikipedia article for it? LibStar (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS DOES not apply to terrorist events with a LASTING IMPACT. You are wasting the valuable time of the community by making baseless claims, and then arguing under the opinion of everyone who disagrees with you, after it is found that haven't done a thorough BEFORE. You have already written eight times under my opinion while you should have invested time before nominating instead of wasting mine. gidonb (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least one other editor (PARAKANYAA) doesn't agree with you. Everyone's time on WP is voluntary, how you choose to spend yours is your choice. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Which page number of "Voice of a Voyage: Rediscovering the World During a Ten-year Circumnavigation" are you referring to? it's a 276 page book. so page number would be helpful. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's on two pages in the book. There are more book mentions. About five, not counting other languages than English. gidonb (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two pages in the middle of Chapter 9. Google Books does not provide page numbers for this particular book.

Which pages? LibStar (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I finally found the text: About a month prior to that in Wadi Dawan,...two Belgian tourists and their driver were killed by a group of insurgents. A 1 line mention in a 276 page book is hardly WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned. Coverage continued on the next page. gidonb (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also here:

Doctrine of Terror: Saudi Salafi Religion - Page 214, Mahboob Illahi, 2018
Yemen Mineral, Mining Sector Investment and Business Guide - Page 189, IBP USA, 2013
Yemen: Dancing on the Heads of Snakes, Page 230, Victoria Clark, 2010

Hang on, closer to ten. This nomination ranks among the more failed ones. gidonb (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked p.230 of "Yemen: Dancing on the Heads of Snakes". the slaughter of the two Belgian women tourists and their driver in the Wadi Doan A 1 sentence mention in a 300+ page book is not WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly in Doctrine of Terror: Saudi Salafi Religion - Page 214, Al-Qaeda militants opened fire on a convoy of tourists in Hadharmauy, killing two Belgian tourists... A 1 sentence mention in a 324 page book is not WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant. The SIGCOV is contemporaneous. The article meets the GNG based on contemporaneous SIGCOV in RS. However, since it is an event, that's insufficient for keeping. In addition, there also needs to be interest in this event over time since for LASTING. Lasting has also been established. Instead of arguing more, this failed nomination should be withdrawn. gidonb (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, and I think your statement is contrary to NEVENT (which is somewhat confusing but still). There isn't enough to keep this as standalone.

I'm of the opinion that terrorist attacks are almost always notable as part of a pattern, and should be mentioned somewhere: a merge accomplishes this. To warrant its own article there must be enough coverage on something to write besides "it happened, people got arrested". None of the later sources you provided are enough. IMO, the most important factors are a mix of both quality and distance of coverage in writing these kinds of an articles. A single high quality retrospective on an event would do a whole lot more for convincing me to vote keep than say, continuing legal developments. This isn't even that, these are just one or two sentences! Not sigcov. I also doubt this would pass on "effect" grounds. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PARAKANYAA LibStar (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there was lots of coverage of this event when it happened. I never went in to that. Only discussed coverage since. gidonb (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOTNEWS, WP is not News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style A spike in coverage at the time of the event is not a good indicator of notability. For example, there was a factory fire near my home covered in the media, should I create an article because it meets GNG? LibStar (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also irrelevant. This is an event with global and lasting coverage. gidonb (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lasting coverage which is not indepth as pointed out by PARAKANYAA. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Yemen Mineral, Mining Sector Investment and Business Guide - Page 189, Belgian tourists and their Yemeni driver were killed in Hadhramout governorate in eastern Yemen. Again, another 1 sentence mention (in a book of 260 pages) that isn't WP:SIGCOV. None of these 1 sentence mentions in the 4 additional sources given establish WP:EFFECT, An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. LibStar (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the other keep !votes for this "failed nomination"? 2 editors have agreed with me about the lack of WP:SIGCOV for the additional sources. LibStar (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Terrorism in Yemen: Strongly unconvinced by the arguments for keeping the article with only passing mentions that the event happened. As part of the broader topic of Terrorism in Yemen this may warrant a mention or brief paragraph, but I don't see the lasting impact from this event that establishes notoriety for an article. Shazback (talk) 04:17, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1911 UIAFA European Football Tournament squads[edit]

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

List of squads involved in 1911 UIAFA European Football Tournament.

Unneeded CFORK, this could easily and more appropriately be included in the main article (much of it already is).

Fails NLIST, there is no indication this has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources

This does not need a stand alone list. // Timothy :: talk 16:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Czech Republic, France, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:06, 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Priyamani[edit]

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

Fails CFORK, NLIST this information could very easily be accommodated in the main article, there is no need for a stand alone list, has not been discussed as a group by independent non-promotional reliable sources. // Timothy :: talk 16:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is not needed. WP:FORK. Page Priyamani#Awards_and_nominations has the list of awards where necessary information can be merged to. RangersRus (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as noted, all awards are already covered at Priyamani, and the list is not long enough to justify a split. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unwarranted fork. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Shein Kunwar[edit]

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

I unable to find any coverage of subject, indian short story writer doesn't meet WP:GNG , only this dead link. http://www.urdudost.com/kainaat/59_apr09/index.html Lkomdis (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lkomdis (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of RS, does not satisfy basic notability criteria. Florificapis (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:G7 GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Age limit[edit]

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

... Pek (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pek Hi there, can you please update your nomination rationale? You also tagged some other articles which do not have an AfD page with the {{Article for deletion/dated}} which I have fixed. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:47, 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 keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator [29] — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This article is not needed, this information is already in Diss (music), where other rap feuds between artists are listed. Biggie and Tupac arguably the biggest rap feud of all, does not have a standalone article dedicated to their feud, and we should not start this precedent here with every single rap feud. Cena332 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as there is significant third-party coverage of the topic that it clearly meet notability requirements. The fact that the Biggie and Tupac feud does not have an article is textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument and the nominator has not provided any other specific rationale as of this message's posting. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 15:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep In addition to Sock's point, Bigge and Tupac DO have a page East Coast–West Coast hip hop rivalry so do other hip hop rivalries Alitheboss55 (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That article is not solely dedicated to their feud. Cena332 (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would argue that it is. Not much is written on events that occurred after Tupac and Biggie's death. Topumpaladybug (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the nominator is not requesting the content to be deleted, but to be redirected. This is handled at WP:MERGE instead. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 15:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I said this information is already in Diss (music). Not to be merged. Cena332 (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - You also said that this is a precedent when it is not. Refer to Category:Hip hop feuds and nominates articles with a valid rationale. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 15:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article needs to exist to help people who dont understand what is happening. IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- i agree Sammy 071 (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- second this. MessiIsMyBezzie (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see any actual arguments in these responses. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the arguments above. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. LemurianPatriot (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Topumpaladybug (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Diss (music) is a broad-concept article that links to a number of more specific articles, including Roxanne Wars, East Coast–West Coast hip hop rivalry, and the article being discussed, Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud. Per WP:NOMERGE, "Merging should be avoided if" [...] "The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short".
The Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in numerous independent reliable sources, including the Associated Press, The Independent, The New York Times, Variety, Agence France-Presse, and many more. — Newslinger talk 15:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This feud is notable, and the Diss article is a broad one, it's not specifically talking about this feud. Putting the entire history of this diss would only unnecessarily lengthen the article more. Jesoysauce (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'm not sure what a "strong keep" is, but I think it would require a strong argument. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While some of the individual diss tracks might be worth consolidating into this main article, this is a broadly notable subject that has drawn significant media coverage and resulted in a series of releases by two major musicians. Its cultural impact is definitely sufficient to count as notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage. The fact that it has a list entry in a broader article doesn't mean it should be deleted, just like we shouldn't delete Joe Biden for being mentioned in List of presidents of the United States. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cena332, I don't like saying this, but this may be headed for a record Keep per WP:SNOW. I think you should consider withdrawing it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:12, 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vartan Malakian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Originally deleted back in 2009, and no notability gained in the time since then. Only source is a YouTube link, and a Google search only turned up passing mentions, self-published fansites et al. Total failure of WP:N, and in particular problematic due to it being a WP:BLP article. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only source is an interview, which is WP:PRIMARY. Since there are no reliable sources on the article or online, this immediately fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Iraq, Armenia, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A BEFORE search reveals things like messages on Reddit or Pintrest and other social media-type sites. I found nothing that is actually about him or his work other that the fact that his son is a known musician, however the father does not inherit notability through his child. I'm not finding anything like reviews, collections, notable exhibitions, articles about him, etc. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not finding any information to show notability. Fails WP:GNG. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:34, 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. ✗plicit 13:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cook (energy market strategist)[edit]

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

Given this article has had verification issues for nearly 12 years, and the fact that none of the sources satisfy WP:GNG mostly because they either lack WP:DEPTH or aren't independent. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found one article on G-Scholar that he co-authored that has >400 cites, but nothing else that would meet NACADEMIC. In general searching, beyond the usual LinkedIn and Youtube entries, I found only a few interviews, and some notices of talks. Nothing indicated GNG. Lamona (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sinéad Ní Neachtain[edit]

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

No indication of the requisite WP:GNG coverage. Only source is a profile in a magazine she edited. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Ireland. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. No independent, secondary coverage to establish WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (soft) - the contents seem factual but lack sufficient sourcing, and the person is not clearly notable enough to rate an article (yet, at least). The one source given was from another Galway publication, not the one the subject edited, but still, it's not sufficient. SeoR (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus that enough significant coverage exists to pass GNG guideline. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zander Murray[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Sources in the article are routine transfer coverage/match reports. The Herald has no sigcov. Also there is WP:BLP1E because he wasn't getting any sigcov before coming out either. Dougal18 (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sexuality and gender, Football, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Homosexuality in association football#Scotland where he is mentioned and which ultimately is his sole claim to fame. Giant Snowman 18:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on further reflection, sources from Herald and The Times are probably sufficient. Giant Snowman 15:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @GiantSnowman:, He is still considered to be a signifciant trailblazer, even written as a piossiblity for 2022 Scot of the Year (see [30] - "no-one, however, has made a more significant impact on our game than Zander Murray") and 2024 Scottish Influencer of the Year and subject of BBC docuumnatary and has received seondary coverage over a few years from many reputed sources over the years - [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. Football-wise, he was a veryu sigifnciant player for a Scottisjh lower legaue team - Gala Fairydean Rovers (see [36], [37], and [38]), where he "has scored 100+ goals and holds the club record for number of goals scored in one season". Put together, I think all of the above warrants him an article. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "awards" (which he didn't win) are meaningless nonsense. He presented that BBC documentary meaning it isn't independent of him. I note your latest thing is to toss around "has secondary coverage" when it is significant coverage that is required. NFOOTBALL (which he wouldn't have passed anyway) has been abolished. Dougal18 (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Meaningless nonsense" is pretty dismissive and coverage that is significant in my and GiantSnowman's opinion has been found above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are making two non notable awards sound like an Oscar or Nobel Prize. --Dougal18 (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know he's an amateur footballer but an argument can be made that there is consistent in-depth coverage. I know in an ideal world sexual orientation shouldn't mean anything but the fact is that open male homosexuality is rare in football (for the same reason, British Asian footballers may receive far more in-depth coverage than their talent would deserve if they were white). He came out in September 2022 and a documentary was made in March 2023, and we have in-depth coverage of him in December 2023 on the BBC [39] Herald [40] STV [41]. Far from a WP:BLP1E where all the coverage is about coming out in 2022 and then the news dries up. Similarly, I had written about Jesús Tomillero, a referee in amateur football who probably wouldn't have a page, but due to the rarity of his being gay, he had several years of in-depth coverage. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's only getting this coverage based on WP:BLP1E. Dougal18 (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps it's marginal but I think anyone interested in Homosexuality in association football#Scotland might well wonder what kind of playing career Murray had and, per the above, there is consistent coverage. Ben Mac Dui 14:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Fuller[edit]

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

Lack of notability. All but one of the sources are about the company he worked for; the remaining on is merely a list entry and does not, imo, go any way whatsoever to establishing notability. TheLongTone (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "37th richest person" isn't quite notable. Sources are about the company he sold, so don't contribute to his notability, outside of any other sourcing... There is nothing that I find about this person. The company could perhaps be notable, this individual isn't. Oaktree b (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do find some articles about him, but they are quite thin. There is the sale of his business Yorkshire news but the same content can be found in the cited articles so I assume it was a press release. The other "news" is that him fighting with neighbors about peasant shooting on his estate: Telegraph Yorkshire Post. I just don't see either his business affairs or his spats with neighbors to come up to GNG. Lamona (talk) 16:14, 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 List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN#Current affairs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment (TV program)[edit]

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

Tagged for lack of references since 2017. No good hits on GBooks, GNews and Gsearch. GNews Archives has mentions of the program but it is because Teodoro Locsin Jr., one of its hosts, was running for congress. Weak Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ABS-CBN#Current_affairs as assignment is quite a common title. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 09:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. Unsourced article, BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIRS, found name mentions, listings. // Timothy :: talk 18:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Khan (Pakistani singer)[edit]

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

The subject does not fulfill the criteria WP:MUSICBIO nor does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. A significant portion of the sources referenced lack reliability as per WP:RS while the rest are merely namechecks. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!

The subject has been featured in two back to back seasons of Coke Studio Pakistan with international coverage. The notability is fine, which is why the article was approved to be included in the mainspace in the first place. Aanuarif (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't how AfD works. You need to provide coverage that meets WP:GNG and also disclose if there's any UPE involved. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is already there. (Personal attack removed) Aanuarif (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable subject with very low-quality sourcing. Haruka Amaranth 13:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Drayton Manor Resort. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jormungandr (roller coaster)[edit]

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

Probably either delete, or merge to Drayton Manor Resort due to lack of SIGCOV. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks, Entertainment, and England. Owen× ☎ 07:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what kind of improvements would need to be made? Sorry this is my first page so not 100% sure if its ok but tried to mimic layouts and information of other rides. Thanks Maddisongiselle (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Maddisongiselle: The most important thing is finding more coverage of the coaster in reliable published sources. Do you know of stories about Jormungandr (or Buffalo Coaster) in newspapers, books, magazines or other web sources? Toughpigs (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did good work. Please read what @Toughpigs noted. Cleo Cooper (talk) 23:28, 24 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!} 07:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:15, 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 00:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romaisa Khan[edit]

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, etc. Merely being in a film or TV series does not make one Inherently notable. Created by a sockpuppet —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the citations to articles focused on Khan published through nation-wide Pakistani news outlets that are currently cited in the article, I also saw coverage and analysis of her influence in an article from the European Journal of Management and Business Economics (DOI:10.1108/EJMBE-08-2022-0270). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's evaluate each and every reference cited in the BLP.
- Daily Pakistan WP:PROMO/tabloid journalism, Daily Pakistan is not reliable for establishing WP:N.
- ARY News The "web desk" byline doesn't meet reliability criteria for news organizations in Pakistan.
- 24 News HD Such sensational interviews aren't sufficient for establishing WP:N.
- Al Jazeera Acceptable source, but this source alone doesn't establish WP:N, No significant/in-depth coverage.
- Urdu Point Not a WP:RS according to criteria for news organizations in Pakistan.
- Oyeyeah - Clearly unreliable and unacceptable source
- The Nation Acceptable source but it only verifies role. No significant/in-depth coverage.
- Mag The Weekly Questionable source but also only verifies role. No significant/in-depth coverage.
- Daily Pakistan Only verifies role, Daily Pakistan is not reliable for establishing WP:N.
- Dawn Images WP:RS but only confirms receipt of a non-notable award
—Saqib (talk | contribs) 00:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward T. Jackson[edit]

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

Non-notable academic, without a lasting claim to relevance for the general public. Sadads (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Clearly meets WP:NPROF criterion 3 as an elected member of the Royal Society of Arts.Central and Adams (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FRSA definitely does not pass #C3. It is (currently at least) the sort of fellowship given to paid subscribers as a way of letting them express that they are interested in the arts. It is not the sort of fellowship given only to people with significant academic accomplishments. See the description of what it means at Royal Society of Arts § Fellowship. This has come up repeatedly before but unfortunately I do not know of a good link where that past wisdom has been collected. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He's a senior research fellow at a Canadian University [42], I'm not sure if that passes PROF notability. Carleton is a mid-level Canadian university in Ottawa. Oaktree b (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was hoping the Citizenship medal would get some coverage, but I can only find his name in a list of winners. I don't see notability due to a lack of sourcing. If the chair position in my question above makes him notable, I'll revisit my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep': Passed WP:PPROF, check This , clearly passes PROF notability. _Usimite (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)'[reply]
No, it doesn't. That just says that some research group hired him to be a researcher ("senior research fellow"). The word "fellow" is overloaded in academia, and again, this is not the sort of highest-level honorary membership in an academic society that would pass #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I see no evidence that he passes any of the criteria in WP:NPROF, including the material in the writeup given by Usimite. The criteria are very specific, and people have to be demonstratively notable in one or more of them. His award from the Canadian Evaluation Society is not big enough, as the relevant chapter has only ~450 members which is too small -- and it is a local not a national award. While he has contributed importantly to the University, it looks routine (WP:MILL) to me. The only possible pass is the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship which is notable enough to have a page. However, it is pretty low in the order for Canada, see Canadian honours order of wearing so I don't view it as passing the wider WP:N. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and the article was full of puffery also. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: According to Criterion 6 of WP:NACADEMIC, he has been 'appointed administrative post at a major academic institution' CA CV, along with criterion 5 according to which he has been 'Chair of Carleton Centre for Community Innovation' here. Authored in Daily FT, Huffpost, Winnipeg Free Press which has some indication towards criterion 7 within WP:NACADEMIC. Ifiwereanywhereelse (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are not fully quoting C6 which states "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone". Also C5 is for academic (endowed) chairs, not (administrative) chair of a center. Lastly in C7 the text is specific, "the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area", and your three links (which don't appear to be in the page) are his articles, which is different from others quoting him as an academic expert. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:NPROF. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He has a few well-cited publications but then his citation counts drop off steeply [43]. Among the top citations, Knowledge shared is an edited volume rather than an authored work and Accelerating impact is not really authored by him; it is a think tank report listing his company as a corporate author. I don't think that leaves enough for WP:PROF#C1 and I'm not convinced anything else discussed here or in the article counts for notability at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ and no indication of further input forthcoming Star Mississippi 00:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

York Housing Association[edit]

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

York Housing Association no longer exists and it appears that it was only ever one of many housing associations serving the Yorkshire area. It merged in 2022 with Leeds and Yorkshire Housing Association to form 54North - now (May 2024)a subsidiary of Karbon Homes (https://54northhomes.co.uk/about-us/). The page would need completely rewritten - but probably better (if it proved notable) to create a new page based on Karbon Homes. Newhaven lad (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if it has been merged into another association, the references in the article show that it is notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 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 Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 00:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable public bus transport in Barcelona[edit]

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

Article was tagged a month ago as needing cleanup, but hasn't been cleaned up yet. It reads more like an essay/presentation. I suggest merging to Transport in Barcelona as this may not meet the notability guidelines, and the only sources are from TMB and Barcelona's official page. Toadette^Edit! 10:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Transportation, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Buses in Barcelona or userfy/draftify. Unsurprisingly, what reads like an essay was written by a student for a class! Can we ban wikiedu programs from allowing new articles? Similarly, User:Mjgirard10/Urban agriculture in Barcelona, full of generic nonsense with little actually specific to Barcelona, was promptly moved back to userspace after the author put it in main. Some of this is pretty decent content though, regardless if sourced to TMB, but not sure if the student will be back. Reywas92^Talk 20:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke it from orbit as WikiEdu garbage that never should have seen mainspace in the first place. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Hikari Sentai Maskman#Cast. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanako Maeda[edit]

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

Sources exist, but not enough significance. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hikari_Sentai_Maskman#Cast -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 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. ✗plicit 11:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Darby[edit]

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

Could not find evidence that the article passes WP:GNG J2m5 (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, Politics, and Australia. J2m5 (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not running for one and losing — but this makes no claim that he had preexisting notability for any other reason independent of unsuccessful candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's some news coverage cited on this page, but I don't see enough to consider him notable. And, as Bearcat pointed out, his unsuccessful candidacies do nothing to establish notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. No real substantial coverage besides running for elections. LibStar (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jolyon Stern[edit]

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

Basically no notability. The only non-primary source which is about him is very short. The creator of the article has a COI, featuring an article about the company in their userpage. Testeraccount101 (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, New York, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 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 no consensus‎. There are well-made arguments on both sides and neither prevails in quality or quantity. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Unaegbu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I came about this article during clean up and saw it's contains a bit vague and non verifiable content. Taking into cleaning up, I became tired at the line seeing almost if not all the sources lacks editorial guidelines, perhaps doesn't go with our policy and guidelines for reliable sources.

On the other hand, apart from the quality percentage of primary sources linking to book that were self published in the platforms such as Amazon, etc., the article generally doesn't meet WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV, and it contains a bit hoaxes that were made (those like references/acclaims which I have removed when cleaning part of the article). The article in general doesn't conform with Wikipedia's inclusion for authors, journalist too—since he edited a magazine and has written for some magazines per the article. Lacks verifiable source and seem looking like a advert/promotional/vaguely constructed source, and more.

The books he wrote doesn't meet our guidelines for books, so we may try redirecting or WP:PRESERVE albeit there is nothing to be preserved here. I also discovered the previous AFD that reads 'no consensus', and it seems there were no improvement or rather say; the previous AFD seeking for clean up which I've did to some part and found no substantial need for the inclusion of this article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I once looked at this article and realized that it was created when some of the links verifying some information were not yet dead links. It was created in 2010 or so. For such kind of articles, caution is required. I saw that he was mentioned by the Nigerian author, Chimamanda Adichie in the New Yorker Magazine and he was involved in creating the Occupy Nigeria protests online. There is also some newspaper articles (see Newswatch) on his writings, especially his poem on Lagos, said to be the longest metrical poem by a Nigerian. I think it needs serious clean up and I may help to find his recent activities. Royalrumblebee (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Royalrumblebee, dead links doesn't mean anything. There is the Wayback machine for saving pages to archives. While you argue about being mentioned by notable Nigerian writers, it's not a criteria for notability. Almost all the references are links to his publications and things about him were written from a PR which is no shadowed to the eye. In any case, provide me with the links that credibly show this article meets notability. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Ok. I found some of his academic publications, including two in JSTOR. But I will look for articles about him, and really- I share your opinion about making sure articles meet notability to remain in this encyclopaedia. Note: see https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6285-4800 Royalrumblebee (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Royalrumblebee, that can't be a source. It's a database. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Oh ok @SafariScribe. I see The Punch as a reliable Nigerian newspaper and it talked about him as a celebrity in depth here (https://punchng.com/nigerian-entertainers-born-october-1/). I also see Daily Trust as another reliable Nigerian newspaper and it told the in-depth story of how he and other two writers (Gimba Kakanda and Richard Ali created the Occupy Nigeria group that online-remotely organized the protests in Nigeria in 2012 (https://dailytrust.com/the-occupants-of-nigerias-harmattan/). I also see Newswatch (Nigeria) as a reliable Nigerian newspaper made a full page review of his book and it states in its first line as well as in details later that "Jeff Unaegbu's This Lagos Na Wa has set a record as the longest poem written by a Nigerian! (https://web.archive.org/web/20120504135846/http://www.newswatchngr.com/editorial/prime/bob/10326094437.htm). Other reliable newspapers that mentioned him only in passing are the American magazine The New Yorker (https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/notes-on-grief);
  
  This Day here (https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2020/09/15/james-nwoye-adichie-1932-2020);
  
  Daily Post (Nigeria) here (https://dailypost.ng/2014/05/02/ekweremadu-donates-transformer-nsukka-community/);
  
  There are many more, but less reliable links that mentioned him in depth such as this (https://www.gistmania.com/talk/topic,61413.0.html). I have already inserted in the article his direct activities as a journalist reporting for Vanguard (Nigeria).
  
  My honest opinion is that inexperienced editors added a lot of unreliable links such as amazon over the reliable ones and so the article only needs serious clean up. I have seen articles in Wikipedia held by just one reference that is not as reliable as the ones I saw on this article. I have included the reliable links above already too. Thanks. Royalrumblebee (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Royalrumblebee, all these sources doesn't link or explained the article like one. For example, a source can say "John Doe is a Nigerian writer who was awarded an MFR by the president of the country. He hasbeen recognized in .....". Then another days "John Doe said he was awarded an MFR by president Doe. In a speech by the president, the world revognised many people and John Doe, standing at the outside asked who is the president." In both sources, the first one seems to he verifiable, significantly covered albeit requires multiple confirmation. It also was taking about John Doe,while the second was taking about an event he attended while giving much view on the president. The thing about John Doe was reported by him—so it's not verifiable. I believe this can help though not broadly covered. Thanks! — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:23, 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) 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Reading Beans
https://punchng.com/nigerian-entertainers-born-october-1/		A reliable national daily in Nigeria	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://dailytrust.com/the-occupants-of-nigerias-harmattan/		A national daily that is has majority of readers from Northern Nigeria	This is an interview-like article talking about #OccupyNigeria and not necessarily about this subject	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20120504135846/http://www.newswatchngr.com/editorial/prime/bob/10326094437.htm	?	The source is a major newspaper	~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail; talks mainly about the book	? Unknown
https://www.gistmania.com/talk/topic,61413.0.html	This is an interview	Gistmania is a gossip blog without any editorial started		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The table above was prepared in response to Royalrumblebee. If we want to talk about book reviews, maybe, someone should write an article about the book itself. With the sources I see, the entry does not meet the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans 14:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on the source table, most appear to be non-RS. "Being born on October 1st" is about the best source, but that's not enough. I don't find anything further. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked closely at the sources, but I wanted to point out that WP:NAUTHOR allows people with multiple notable books (per WP:NBOOK) to have articles even without biographical coverage. In the sources listed here, I only see one contributing to NBOOK -- the Newswatch review of This Lagos Na Wa -- but I wanted to suggest that those interested in a "keep" should look for a second review of that and additional reviews of his other books. I think Achidie's mention of Biography of Nigeria's Foremost Professor of Statistics, Prof. James Nwoye Adichie in "Notes on Grief" is probably not enough to contribute to NBOOK for that specific book, but it might have reviews. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that all written was his books where many are self pubs. WP:NAUTHOR also covers being covered per WP:GNG. Strongly, we know this article contains vagues of uncited words. Also trivial mentions doesn't meet notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Notability as per WP:ANYBIO which allows people with major awards to have articles: His book, “Ode on Lagos” won a national award. This is the Association of Nigerian Authors/ Cadbury prize. This was reported in page 35 of a Nigerian national newspaper, The Nation (November 30, 2011). Below is the online link as hosted by The Nation newspapers. Please turn to page 35: https://issuu.com/thenation/docs/november_30__2011/1

His book, “Freedom in Our Bones” also won a national award. This is the Nigerian Universities Research and Development Fair award in 2008. It is reported in a national newspaper: Edukugho, E. (2008). “Third Nigerian Varsities Research Development Fair: Matters Arising”, Vanguard, April 3, P.43. It is available in the offline archives of this newspaper on phone request but there is no online link yet.

Notability as an academic or creative professional as stipulated in WP:AUTHOR: The subject is an academic as well as a creative professional. He is cited by many scholars as per WP:AUTHOR which allows multiple citing of a subject as proof of notability. This link leads to his book, “92 Days” being cited in an article, “Nigeria’s Leadership Questions: A Re-Appraisal Of Key Issues, 1961-1990”: https://journals-co-za.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.31920/2753-3204/2023/v1n1a4 Another book he wrote, “Fifty Years of African Studies: A History of the Institute of African Studies, University of Nigeria, Nsukka (1963–2013)” is cited thus: https://ebin.pub/transformations-in-africana-studies-history-theory-and-epistemology-1032277475-9781032277479.html

He is cited in JSTOR too (Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, Vol. 27, 2018, page 36: https://www.jstor.org/stable/48561674?searchText=jeff+unaegbu&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Djeff%2Bunaegbu%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A161914275d5e91e6c796bf7c807fce36&seq=13

Notability as per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NBOOK: Aside from the review of his book, “Ode to Lagos” by the national Newswatch, the article indicated that his book, “92 Days in Power” was reviewed by Professor Christian Opata in page 40 of the national Nigerian newspaper, Daily Sun of Friday 19 December 2014. This review is available as shown:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A2ZsX_N3K5iih_8jOB2K3bpwhrOgCvNy/view?usp=sharing

Notability as per WP:GNG: The subject has also been mentioned in depth by more national newspapers aside Punch as already mentioned above. Here are two from two different journalists:

Prof. Ozioma Onuzulike. (2007). “I write to Put Right the Wrongs_ Jeff Unaegbu”, Sunday Vanguard, April 8, P. 48.

Oge, O. (2011). “Poet Harps on Need to Educate Young Poets”, Nigerian Compass, Wednesday July 20, p. 16. The two above came from a bibliographical iindex list in a University library catalogue offline and I confirmed them as a journalist. There are no online links yet.

There is a long bio of the subject in this journal: https://themuseunn.com/guest-lecture-writing-and-publishing-trends-in-the-new-decade-mr-jeff-unaegbu/

Most of his books cited via amazon links would have to be changed to the more authentic links from the New York Public Library as shown: https://www.nypl.org/research/research-catalog/search?q=jeff%20unaegbu

And Stanford university library: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/?search_field=search&q=jeff+unaegbu

I will help do the clean up now. [ Diamondsee (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NAUTHOR for having their work reviewed on Newswatch and making significant contributions in his field, which is evident from WP:BEFORE. @LEvalyn I definitely agree with you on this. For several reason, I am not comfortable !voting for deletion here. I have taken over 1.5 hours doing BEFORE and have come to this conclusion. I have also personally reviewed short stubs about American authors who I deem to pass WP:NAUTHOR just exactly with the same minimal coverage this person has and having their work reviewed by INDEPENDENT RSs SIGNIFICANTly. The person and his work were reviewed by Newswatch and there's also a bit of SIGCOV at Punch, these two, is enough for me to write a stub. This person appearing in so many other sources (whether reliable or not) also shows a sign that they've made significant contributions in their field. Deletion is not cleanup for Christ's sake, and that is all this article needs. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To line up Diamondsee's sources with NBOOK criteria, what I see here is:
- NBOOK#2 (major literary award) for Ode to Lagos and the ANA award // 1/2 of NBOOK#1 (2 reviews) for Ode to Lagos with Newswatch review
- 1/2 of NBOOK#1 (2 reviews) for 92 Days in Power with Daily Sun review

The various citations don't really play a role for NBOOK. I don't think that's strictly an NAUTHOR#3 pass, since NAUTHOR#3 (significant body of work) is typically met through multiple wiki-notable works. Looking at the citations and other coverage, though, I see the case for NAUTHOR#1 (regarded as an important figure, widely cited) or simple GNG. I still haven't done any looking for sources myself, but I share Vanderwaalforces' sense that I have seen useful articles with similar or worse sourcing. I also increasingly suspect that the best sourcing will have been in print rather than readily available online. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Daraa bombing[edit]

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

WP:NSUSTAINED, WP:NEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS. Sources on this found in search engine are all on bombing day with no other event afterwards. Toadette^Edit! 08:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, and Syria. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As mentioned, fails sustained, nothing to say besides it happened, sources don’t really put this into a pattern of anything and I can’t think of any redirect/merge target that wouldn’t be shoving a square peg in a round hole. Theoretically could go into the timeline of Syrian Civil war 2024 article, but again, not a great fit. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One in a series of attacks in the war, not particularly notable F.Alexsandr (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to AB Aviation or a subsection thereof, such as AB_Aviation#Accidents_and_incidents. Consensus is that while the material is worth retention, it does not necessarily mandate a standalone due to length of this and the target Star Mississippi 00:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AB Aviation Flight 1103[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:EVENTCRIT. No evidence of lasting effects. The last news report related to the event was AB aviation losing its license (French). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - once again, with your logic, most flights with articles ex. Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 should be deleted because it doesn't have any continued coverage? There has also been 13 fatalities, i can't tell if this was a sarcastic nomination but whatever it is, this is Abuse of AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeekyAviation (talk • contribs) 03:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither sarcastic nor an abuse of AfD, this is following the given wikipedia guidelines and interpreting them so as to whether we keep these articles or not.

After 2022, there hasn't any news article covering this accident. Does not meet the event criteria. It's not even sure whether an investigation has been launched. There haven't been any reports of changes in the aviation sector failing WP:LASTING.

Instead of typing keep, you should go read some of the wikipedia guidelines iI highlighted. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i did read it. also from what im seeing from your understanding, you'd need to go nominate for deletion plenty of other articles. you can find it here. GeekyAviation (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh why, thank you so much. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you're welcome GeekyAviation (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, not as bad as it may seem. I clicked 20(!) randlom articles from the list and hit not a single page as bad as we are discussing here. - Altenmann >talk 04:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i don't understand what you are saying, please come and reply once you are back from the bar and sober, thanks so much! GeekyAviation (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to a certain degree. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to AB_Aviation#Accidents_and_incidents, which says it all. - Altenmann >talk
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Comoros. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I did find some lasting coverage here and here. It was a commercial passenger crash with fatalities, which are usually kept - the problem here is that it happened in the Comoros, so coverage is difficult to search for, but can still be improved. SportingFlyer T·C 05:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, those were singular seperate pieces of articles published in 2022. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - given the small size of AB Aviation, the four sentences can be moved there. The "losing its license" part will make more sense with context there. tedder (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though it was only a Cessna 208, the company operating the flight also operated ERJ 145 and EMB 120 aircraft, so it wasn't a typical charter company of a couple of guys with a plane. The accident led to the revocation of the airline's operating license (link to article included in nominator's statement), and a year later, it was still in the news as family members of the crash victims were still in the courts seeking restitution (2022 article, in French here, 2023 article, in French here) In addition, the crash resulted in Comorian civil aviation changing aviation rules to prohibit the rental and chartering of single-engine aircraft for commercial flights (see article, in French here), so the accident has lasting effect in the form of regulatory changes. There is a consensus that accidents of commercial flights that lead to regulatory changes or safety changes meet notability standards, and I believe that's met here. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree more towards a merge as, on itself, the event isn't notable enough for a standalone article. What you mentioned, the changing of aviation rules isn't solving the problem, it just makes aviation in the Comoros more complicated. If this accident were to have lasting effects, it would have to have come from the investigation itself except no investigation was ever started so actual rule changes which would help develop aviation safety will probably never happen.

The losing of license, rule changes, court proceedings can all be merged with the airline article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13 fatalities isn't notable? GeekyAviation (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was clearly sustained local coverage of a commercial flight, this clearly qualifies for an article using our sourcing rules. SportingFlyer T·C 02:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see evidence of sustained local coverage after the first week to month. Only 1/4 of the articles linked here provide some sort of analysis. Even then, the said analysis is on the aftermath of the event, not the event itself.

3/4 of the articles linked in this page were mostly brief bursts of coverage with brief content.

Outside of these four articles, the term AB Aviation Flight 1103 isn't common so you have to write a short description of the event in french to actually get to the same topic. Even then, the results given link you to Yemenia Flight 626 or other aviation events. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I agree with tedder´s proposal, that way the link in the aviation accidents and incidents in 2022 category will redirect to the airline page instead.--Voceta (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge and redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:58, 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. Because reasonable arguments have been made as to why their former location isn't a viable target, and there is absolutely no consensus on what might be one. A redirect can be created editorially if needed, but no aone is arguing the content needs preservation. Star Mississippi 00:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Office of the World Bank, London[edit]

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

Contested PROD of an individual office of the World Bank. No other office has its own page. Clearly fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect which is what I said should happen when I deprodded this. I'm just not certain what the best target is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the proposer of a merge or redirect cannot identify a target, that's a rather significant problem. You deprodded the article but failed to suggest a credible alternative to deletion. In that case, the article should be deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - Altenmann >talk 03:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, merge what and to where? AusLondonder (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article merely confirms it exists. Fails GNG and not worth redirecting/merging. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the building that it's located in - originally assumed it was about the building, but it's about an office in the building which clearly fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is wrong, the World Bank no long has an office at Millbank Tower. AusLondonder (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should delete it. SportingFlyer T·C 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is leaning towards deletion since a redirect target has not been identified. Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Millbank Tower#Occupants as WP:ATD - plausible search term to existing article (unless I'm missing something bleeding obvious)? Ingratis (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we redirect to their former office location? That makes absolutely no sense. ATD doesn't mean we can never delete an article and should instead create incorrect and pointless redirects just so we don't have to ever delete anything. AusLondonder (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, there is no point redirecting to a former office location. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because: (a) it's not a newly-created redirect - see WP:R#KEEP #4: the article has been there for 11 years; (b) WP:R#KEEP #5 - just because you don't find it useful doesn't mean it isn't to someone; (c) in general WP:REDIRECT - the balance is to keep redirects unless they meet specific criteria for deletion, and this one doesn't; (d) why on earth would anyone come to Wikipedia to find the current London address of the World Bank? they are more likely to want reminding of its previous far higher profile location: Millbank Tower is notable, whereas 1 Tudor Street (as yet) is not; and (e) in any case the WB London current address is included in both articles.
I'll underline that I'm not advocating keeping the article itself. Ingratis (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a ridiculous and blatantly misleading redirect. How does it meet WP:RPURPOSE? I'm actually quite confused by your reasoning. In the unlikely event someone is looking for information on the London office of the World Bank how does redirecting them to Millbank Tower assist? Frankly a redirect in these circumstances would meet multiple criteria at WP:R#DELETE. AusLondonder (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, because apart from anything else the Millbank Tower article includes the current address of the World Bank in London (which is nowhere else on Wikipedia, I think), if there is anyone who is really too dim to use the World Bank's own website instead. We've reached the usual conclusion of a Wikipedia discussion - "I say it is" vs "I say it isn't" - and there'll be no further progress, so I'm leaving it there. Ingratis (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The key reason - there are no other branches on Wikipedia. And the references are poor enough. Delete without redirecting is also a good idea. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
obviously fails GNG

N 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of İbrahim Oktugan[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRIME. This specific case isn't notable enough for a standalone article, nor does it have any international coverage that I could find. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Turkey. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with above Chidgk1 (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sadly, a rather routine murder. I don't find coverage outside of Turkey, only local news reporting. I don't see this as passing CRIME notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there coverage at least in the national-level outlets, such as TRT World? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 00:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Flynn (businessman)[edit]

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

Most news seems to be about his company Flynn Group and its restaurants/ acquisitions rather than him. He was briefly in the news regarding the California minimum wage issues and seems to be only known for that. Shinadamina (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Shinadamina (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, United States of America, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is substantial coverage out there about Flynn. The article just has to be expanded. Thriley (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator, most of the articles are about his company or are primary with quotations. The Forbes article and QSR Magazine seem to be the best coverage, but they both contain lot's of quotations and based on primary info. Hkkingg (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyfeldman/2016/08/24/the-super-sizer-how-greg-flynn-became-americas-largest-restaurant-franchisee-with-1-9b-revenues/ shows ample coverage just about him. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/how-restaurateur-navigating-pandemic talks about him. Dream Focus 18:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes article is OK, but Stanford is an interview. Yolandagonzales (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this. https://www.entrepreneur.com/franchises/greg-flynn-owns-1245-restaurants-and-makes-2-billion-a/333187 Lot of detail about him. Dream Focus 19:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Entrepreneur article is almost entirely based on quotations, so it is the same as interview and considered unreliable. Rustypenguin (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty written about him, it not just quotes. And interviews are fine for confirming notability. A reliable source thought the person notable enough to write about and/or interview. Interviews are only not seen as reliable for content in an article because they are a primary source. Dream Focus 12:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please share where you have seen that policy that states interviews are fine for notability? I saw someone making this same argument once before, but all participating editors/admins decided there was not such a policy. Rustypenguin (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Primary sources are excluded for WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, so unless it verifies a claim in the additional criteria (ANYBIO, ENT, SPORTS, etc) I don't see how that would work. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are usable for content in an article though, for straightforward statements of fact, without undue weight, and with caution if basing longer passages on them. If we had to make a simple statement one way or another (as we loathe to do) PAG is basically the exact other way around. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Forbes articles looks OK. Stanford is an interview. Most other sources are about the company. Notability is not inherited. We should consider making a page for his company The Flynn Group. Yolandagonzales (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The company this individual founded, not the founder himself, is what is notable here. A review of the citations here only shows there are few that provide in-depth coverage of this individual. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 1 source is in-depth which is Forbes. The rest are interviews or passing mentions. I vote to delete. Rustypenguin (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above editors. Although there is some news coverage, they are not the right type of coverage. They are mostly interviews, quotations and primary. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Greg-Flynn-Owns-1-245-Restaurants-and-Makes-2-13900429.php SFGate gives significant coverage about him and his accomplishments. Dream Focus 18:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SFGate Article also contains many quotations and appears to be based on an interview. It is unfortunate that wiki policies do not count interviews towards notability, but we must follow the policies. Rustypenguin (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. I don't see anywhere against interviews being used to determine notability. Coverage is coverage. A reliable source thought they notable enough to cover, then that counts. Dream Focus 01:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So, the sources are really obvious and are already in the article. I was planning on adding these really in depth and obvious indicators of notability to the article, but they were already there, leaving me perplexed.

These sources are entirely about his life. Yes, they're also going to talk about the company he founded that literally is named after him. The fact that he founded such a successful business is what makes him notable. And, yes, news articles about people are going to include quotes from them. That doesn't make them interview articles. An interview is an article that is entirely just question and response. None of these are that. The claims made by those above would be equivalent to saying Jeff Bezos isn't notable because any article about him is also going to discuss Amazon. It's nonsense. That's not how notability works. Silver seren^C 23:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough of the sources have in depth coverage of Greg Flynn. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Forbes might be OK, I guess, the first few paragraphs look fine, and given it's written by staff it's RS. QSR, I can't see any sign of independent thought. I'm skeptical it even counts as an RS tbh, WTWH seems to be a brand marketing company? Editorial process? Random Entrepreneur contributors are similarly not even RS, at least the Forbes article was written by bylined staff. Even if we pretend both are RS, what's independent isn't significant, and what's significant isn't independent, they're entirely unusable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:48, 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!} 07:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shuja Asad[edit]

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

Another BLP on a non-notable actor created by BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) who has a dubious editing history. The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one Inherently notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on the following source assessment. On its face, the subject appears notable based on the number of references, but clearly fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Maybe after the upcoming film he is supposedly in there will be more press but WP:TOOSOON at this point in time. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube, labeled as "Something Haute" on the page but it is in fact NOT that publication. it is simply on their YouTube channel. Not a reliable source.

Social Diary, and interview and clear promotional piece.

Galaxy Hollywood, Outside of this being unreliable (blog, no editorial oversight), it only verifies his role in a film. Verification does not equal notability.

Dawn, as with above, it verifies a role but nothing substantial about the subject himself.

YouTube, another YouTube video masquerading as a reliable source. It is the channel for FUCHSIA Magazine which I cannot tell if it is a reliable source but the YouTube content definitely is not.

Ary News, translated byline as "news desk" indicates clear WP:NEWSORGINDIA and not reliable for notability.

Gulf News, contributor tabloid content that can be purchased on Upwork. Not reliable.

DND, verifies a role but nothing substantial about him.

Galaxy Hollywood, verifies role, but nothing substantial about him.

Mag The Weekly, willing to bet this is also unreliable if I did, but on its face it is a promotional interview with several subjects. Not reliable for at least notability.

24 News HD, "News Desk" byline which is clear NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable.

Ary News, "Web Desk" byline, more NEWSORGINDIA. Not Reliable.

Ary News, English version, "web desk" byline, more NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable.

YouTube, many issues but besides being YouTube, this is the channel of HUM TV meaning nothing would be considered independent.

Mag The Weekly, another one from this publication where I do not believe would be a reliable publication. Regardless, byline of "Mag The Weekly" indicates NEWSORGINDIA so not reliable.

The News, another that verifies a role, but nothing significant about the subject.

Keep Shuja is a notable actor. Gulf news has written about Shuja it also covers many other news as well it is used in Arab countries and Something Haute is a Magazine just like Aurora Magazine Dawn.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
As the creator of this BLP, you've to provide references to support claims made about her significant roles. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf News is a paid placement and falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I can go to Upwork and have an article published in Gulf News right now that outlines the status of this AfD. It is literally that easy! --CNMall41 (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @CNMall41 2600:1700:103A:D800:3D53:1D07:BF86:3DEB (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1700:103A:D800:3D53:1D07:BF86:3DEB: See WP:ATA —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of a sudden, an unknown IP address with just 3 contributions is voting delete and supporting the nominator. Strange. Libraa2019 (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a great explanation for that as the same happened to a recent nomination I made. Although I will AGF (or at least as much as saying "strange"). --CNMall41 (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shuja's role Sardar Barlas Khan in popular drama Khaie was very well received among the viewers.[44] Some background about how Shuja started his carrer.[45](BeauSuzanne (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- BeauSuzanne Wait - Is Khaie considered a significant work? From what I've seen, it doesn't appear to be, which means the subject fails NACTOR. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has sufficient coverage in reliable news sources like Daily Times and Gulf News. Both links are mentioned below.

Daily Times

Gulf News

Also he is mentioned in many reliable sources like [46], [47] Libraa2019 (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As CNMall41 pointed out, Gulf News's coverage is considered a paid placement and falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The other sources don't delve into the subject with the required depth as outlined in WP:GNG to establish WP:N. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf News is nowhere mentioned in WP:NEWSORGINDIA and India and Pakistan are different countries if you dont know. Libraa2019 (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting old and seems to be a WP:CIR issue. NEWSORGINDIA says, "Examples of sponsored content include supplements published by" - Note my emphasis on "examples." It does not say "these ARE the publications" or that the example list is inclusive. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to go through other pages and point out where you have used publications listed as examples in NEWSORGINDIA if you like. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be useful for the closing admin to make a decision. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't need to go far. The creation of Abu Aleeha shows this and this which were the first two references I checked. I am also concerned based on the permission of the image used on that page as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, You're scaring them. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: SPI filed. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not my intention. The image permission does show a clear COI however. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a WP:NACTOR since his role in "Khaie", received recognition and coverage from the masses. Even sources included covers the subject matter.

182.182.29.217 (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

182.182.29.217, Can you provide evidence of your claim in RS? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf News one is a WP:RS. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't just vaguely mention the source, provide the coverage right here. Share the link that can establish WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources mentioned as per @Libraa2019. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the coverage provided by @Libraa2019 has been rejected by @CNMall41: above. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I share the same pov as @Libraa2019 does in this AfD, so that's why I voted Keep and still stands by my decision. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IP blocked —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The detailed source evaluation by CNMall41 indicates very little independent secondary content has been written about the subject by RS. JoelleJay (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The DT link has maybe a sentence of secondary independent coverage, the rest of it is regurgitating what the subject said and fails independence. Additionally, the article uses generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter or reviewer, indicating it is unreliable. JoelleJay (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nice source analysis above, it's WP:TOOSOON. There's some fluff in the article as well (the early life section could be condensed a fair amount), but the career section doesn't show WP:NACTOR being met. Ravensfire (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per CNMall4 and their findings. Not notable at all. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 23:08, 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 Nord Anglia Education. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British International School of Kuala Lumpur[edit]

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

Article was AfDed in 2014 and closed as no consensus per a part WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which subsequently was repealed in 2017. Since the previous nom, no new sources have come to light. Probably best if we redirect to Nord Anglia Education. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the redirect to Nord Anglia Education. Bduke (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:55, 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!} 04:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nord Anglia Education. I have searched but cannot find information to demonstrate a pass of WP:GNG. The school is reasonably new and it may become notable in the future, but the redirect will preserve page history should that happen. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 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. ✗plicit 06:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Zaikina[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Absolutely fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Georgia (country), and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject definitely fails WP:NSKATE and I am struggling to find any coverage at all. For reference, the Cyrillic script transliteration of her name seems to be Екатерина Заикина. JTtheOG (talk) 00:23, 24 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 04:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed that it fails WP:NSKATE. Further, de minimis test of notability appears to be their participation in World Juniors, which doesn't seem to have any RS coverage. - Cara Wellington (talk)

Cara Wellington (talk) 06:25, 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 no consensus‎. and it appears none is going to evolve. Even discounting the aside about football cards, established editors are split on depth of coverage Star Mississippi 00:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvan Anderton[edit]

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

sportsperson stub. fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Kingdom. ltb d l (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The player appears to have a substantial number of appearances for Reading and Chelsea. I think it's a matter of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. Over 200 appearances in England's professional football league (verified by the Neil Brown source in the article sas well as sources like this), while a quick Google search brings up things like this and this which clearly indicate historical (read: offline) coverage. A lazy nomination. Giant Snowman 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
are those football cards? ltb d l (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...yes? Giant Snowman 07:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
football cards aren't reliable sources ltb d l (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has that ever been decided? I'd think if it were by a reputable company it would be reliable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's crazy ltb d l (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Football cards being reliable sources made me literally laugh out loud. AusLondonder (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't a reputable card company be reliable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
amazing. 10/10. no notes. ltb d l (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At no point have I claimed that football cards are reliable. I was merely suggesting that appearing on football cards - and, if you had bothered to Google him, all the other historical coverage at photo archives etc. - suggests there is coverage out there, which research by others below has supported. Giant Snowman 18:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the amount of games he played and the clubs he played for seems good enough, combined with GS sources above and probably much more WP:OFFLINESOURCES, this needs improvement for sure. Govvy (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than 200 professional appearances for teams with deep, deep histories and legacies. This is very obvious. Clearly notable. Anwegmann (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and lacks SIGCOV. An actual check of the newspapers.com archive finds nothing but mentions in match reports/transfer stories. He went on to play cricket for Bryant Rose Cricket Club and won the raffle four years in a row there but that is trivial stuff. NFOOTBALL has been depreciated since 2022 so any Keeps based on number of games played must be ignored by the closer. He isn't notable either for playing for some "notable" clubs per NOTINHERITED. Dougal18 (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I frequently see editors citing Wikipedia:But there must be sources! in AfDs for footballers with dozens of international caps. I'd like to see the same standard applied to footballers with "over 200 appearances in England's professional football league". How do football cards indicate offline coverage, @GiantSnowman:? As Dougal18 points out so far it has not been demonstrated that SIGCOV exists. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly per Dougal18's reasoning. Footballers are not inherently notable - they need to meet WP:GNG. This is clear community consensus. Simply asserting that an individual played for notable teams is not a suitable AfD argument. If nothing can be found in newspaper archives, then he's not notable. Another point is this is little more than an infobox and a pseudo-biography. AusLondonder (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a decent amount of newspaper coverage, although it is mostly brief-ish: see [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]. An argument could be made for WP:NBASIC, considering he seemed to have significant amount of appearances for prominent clubs. Not sure if that changes anyone's views: @Ltbdl, AusLondonder, Dougal18, and Robby.is.on:? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good research! Giant Snowman 07:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Dougal and AusLondoner. Football cards do not contribute to notability at all, and given passing mentions in match reports don't count towards even BASIC for modern players they shouldn't count for old players either. We don't have a single piece of the required IRS SIGCOV, so we have no valid justification for retaining this article. JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He also has a biographical entry in Chelsea The Complete Record: author: Rick Glanvill isbn: 9781909245303 also mentioned in The Little Book of Reading FC - 1920-2008 author: Alan Sedunary isbn: 9781780913711. There maybe more books with biographical information. Govvy (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you tell us what exactly is in those books? Dougal18 (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glanvill is Chelsea's official historian, he is not an independent source. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @JoelleJay: That's not correct, nor is it proper to discredit him. Will you do the same for Historians who went to Oxford and Cambridge and write about those subjects? He is a published author and a reputable one at that. Please don't use this argument ever again on any credited club historian. Govvy (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's literally hired by the club to write about club history. Of course he isn't independent. And if a historian is employed by Oxford to write about Oxford history then they aren't independent either. JoelleJay (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: Again you really have no idea, the Chelsea book is independent to the club, published by De Coubertin Books deCoubertin Books is a leading independent publisher, which publishes outstanding non-fiction titles predicated on high editorial and production values. We work with some of the biggest names in sport and sportswriting and our books have been nominated for numerous awards. Being hired by a club doesn't make the book published by the club. Also the link provided says he is the club historian, because he is the top of his field in the history for the club, at no time does that post on the Chelsea page say he is hired directly for them. The Reading book is published by Breedon Books Publishing Co Ltd and not Reading Football Club. These are both independent publishers to the clubs. I really don't understand why you feel these are primary sources when they are not remotely so. Govvy (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being an employee of the club (He has worked for all Chelsea FC's publications and media since 1993 and is the club's official historian.) means the person has a COI with the club, and this applies to material the person publishes through independent publishers (and obviously anything authored by the club would go through an external publisher; it's not like each club has its own book publishing house; the "Official Biography" of Chelsea that he penned ... for the club is through Headline Publishing Group). We'd consider a book authored by a relative of the subject to be non-independent regardless of where it's published; the same applies here. And what part of "the club's official historian", as recorded on the club's website, makes you think he's not working directly for them.....
I didn't say anything about primary sources. I said they are non-independent. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is like arguing that an 'official biographer' of a celebrity should be discredited...nonsense! Giant Snowman 18:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An official biographer of a celebrity who was hired by that celebrity's talent agency should absolutely be discredited! JoelleJay (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...that is not what an official biographer (always) is. See e.g. Rob Wilkins/Terry Pratchett. Giant Snowman 20:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sports cards are reliable sources stat-wise.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – For the arguments presented so far in the discussion. I see no reason to discredit a club historian, or sports cards, considering that the athlete played in the 50s and 60s. The sources presented by @Govvy demonstrate credibility. Svartner (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Credibility of who? Dougal18 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The authors of mentioned books. Svartner (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So employees of the football club are somehow exempted from the NSPORT guidance saying Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players if they don't publish directly on the website?
The sports cards are completely trivial stats coverage. Why would they count? JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. The delete arguments seem a bit WP:IDONTLIKEIT, in their attempts to discredit what seems like reasonable coverage. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete claiming a biographer who is an employee of the company is an independent source is a strange notion.

Industrial Insect (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, because this type of historiographical survey is not carried out partially, but rather as a measure to preserve part of the institution's history. The likelihood of the book's author having tampered with these numbers is negligible, which in my opinion makes the source completely credible. Svartner (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There is clear coverage of this person, who was active 60+ years ago (hence why not everything is online!), but saying a professional athlete with over 200 appearances is not notable is nonsense. Giant Snowman 20:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly significant player for a Football League club (Reading) with over 200 pro appearnces that definitely has offline sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IMHO he satisfies WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant player with over Over 200 appearances in England's professional football league as per WP:NEXIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and more offline sources are being found and added by helpful users! Giant Snowman 17:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... which only the people with a subscription can read. "Cheerio, Sylvan! READING WERE RIGHT TO SELL by THE SPORTS EDITOR" seems to be an opinion piece which wouldn't be sigcov. Either that or it is routine transfer story. Dougal18 (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. But restore to prior sourced version, which I will do Star Mississippi 00:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Freston[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline. likely an autobiography. ltb d l (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. ltb d l (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note Please note that Tfreston (talk · contribs), who purports to be the subject, began to edit the article in July 2016 and has virtually stripped out all of the sources; this is the last edit before they became involved, and this edit from several months ago was the last before the subject stripped out all sources, including about basic biographical information such as children and marriage. This may be a case where COI has to be flagged and the mentioned editor may have to be blocked from editing their own article, which had proper sources before then. @Ltbdl:, can you let me know what you think of what I presented? Nate • (chatter) 18:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Good Lord, they really have removed all of the sources in the article. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 19:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but restore to pre-COI'd state. With profiles in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and CNBC, he's clearly notable, we just have to keep him from trying to write an autobiography. Jfire (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:35, 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 Gargoyles (TV series). Star Mississippi 00:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Xanatos[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE shows that most of the sources were from the film, except this [55]. But, that is not enough for the character. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 04:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 04:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic does not need to be the main subject to "count" with regard to notability. In my view, the mentioned Polygon article, this IGN article and the appearance in The Tropes of Fantasy Fiction, together with briefer appearances like here, establish enough material and commentary to fulfill the requirements of WP:WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT, and therefore establish notability. Daranios (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Despite the existence of a great Polygon article for SIGCOV, the character doesn't pass GNG with the demonstrated sources. A compromise would be merging him to a list of characters. The trope of Xanatos Gambit is purely a TVTropes thing and isn't super well-known outside of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: If the trope of Xanatos Gambit is purely a TVTropes thing, then why does it appear in secondary sources, including academic ones? Daranios (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing and getting heavy discussion are two different things. But if the trope is indeed discussed heavily in scholarly sources, it might merit an article on the trope itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think it's "discussed heavily", but it is discussed to some degree. Which again is different from being purely a TVTropes thing in my view. So I think it would be quite fitting to include the trope to a degree within the article here, which in turn means there is enough material to constitute a non-stubby article. Daranios (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting yet but concurring with Daranios here. If the concept is receiving actual discussion then it is a valid topic to cover in the article, regardless of potential origin. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep, per Daranios. DrBat (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a brief sourced summary to Gargoyles (TV series), fails GNG, nothing found meeting WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth are passing mentions at best, nothing that meets SIGCOV. BEFORE found nothing that meets SIRS. // Timothy :: talk 03:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apacer[edit]

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

Previously deleted and salted as Apacer Technology Inc. No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Taiwan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Ng, Celeste See-Pui; Chang, Pei-Chann (2009). "Exploring the Links between Competitive Advantage and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Upgrade Decision: A Case Study Approach". In Chou, Shuo-Yan; Trappey, Amy; Pokojski, Jerzy; Smith, Shana (eds.). Global Perspective for Competitive Enterprise, Economy and Ecology: Proceedings of the 16th ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering. London: Springer-Verlag. p. 185. doi:10.1007/978-1-84882-762-2_17. ISBN 978-1-84882-761-5. Retrieved 2024-04-28 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Apacer was founded in April 1997. The capital is over ten hundred million US dollars with approximately 500 staff members. The business volume is NTD120 millions in year 2003 and reached NTD140 million in 2004. The head-quarter is situated at the Nankang Software Park, Taipei. The firm currently has offices in USA, Netherlands, France, Tokyo, Middle East, India, Sydney, Hong Kong, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia. Apacer is a manufacturing company that develops dynamic RAM (DRAM). Apacer offers various types of sale services to its clients based on the size of the order and the size of the client's company."
2. "Apacer Technology Inc. (Taiwan, China)". EMIS. 2024-03-26. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The company summary of the report notes: "Apacer Technology Inc. was founded in 1997 and, from its earliest stage, positioned itself to be an agile supplier of DRAM whose primary operations focused on memory modules. The company provides standard DRAM memory modules, which include 128 megabyte (MB), 256MB, 512 MB, 1 gigabyte (GB), 2GB, 4GB and 8GB double data rate (DDR) I, DDR II and DDR III products; DRAM memory modules, which are applied in industrial computers, servers, printers, network products, routers and memory modules; flash memory cards, flash memory drives, multimedia players and digital peripheral products, including moving picture experts group layer-3 audio (MP3) players, flash drives, card readers, solid hard disks, universal serial bus (USB) hubs and USB chargers, among others, as well as embedded flash memory modules. Reliant upon the semiconductor’s complete vertical integration of the memory modules' technical capabilities with its professional marketing services, Apacer successfully created its own global brand and had become the world’s fourth largest memory module manufacturer by 1999. Since its establishment it has set up subsidiaries in the United States, the Netherlands, Japan, Mainland of China, India etc."
3. "Apacer Technology Inc. (Taiwan, China)" [宇瞻科技股份有限公司 (中国台湾地区)] (in Chinese). EMIS. 2024-03-26. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The company summary of the report notes: "1997年4月16日，成立企基科技股份有限公司，设立公司于台北市，资本额新台币10,000,000元，为宏基集团转投资公司，提供记忆体模组产品之专业制造商。同年7月，公司地址迁移至台北县汐止市，并更名为宇瞻科技股份有限公司。10月，成立宇瞻美国子公司。1998年1月，龙潭厂区设立。同年2月，成立欧洲子公司。4月，领先推出符合IntelPC100规格的记忆体模组。"
  From Google Translate: "On April 16, 1997, Apacer Technology Inc. was established in Taipei City with a capital of NT$10,000,000. It is a company invested by Acer Group and provides a professional manufacturer of memory module products. In July of the same year, the company's address was moved to Xizhi City, Taipei County, and its name was changed to Apacer Technology Co., Ltd. In October, Apacer's US subsidiary was established. In January 1998, Longtan factory was established. In February of the same year, a European subsidiary was established. In April, it took the lead in launching memory modules that meet Intel PC100 specifications."
4. Chen, Yanni 陳嬿妮 (1998-12-04). "宇瞻科技擦亮APACER招牌挾宏碁集團豐富資源在記憶體模組領域快速崛起" [Apacer Technology Polishes Apacer Brand. Leveraging Acer Group's rich resources to rapidly rise in the field of memory modules.]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 54.
  The review notes: "宏碁半導體集團旗下一支專業記憶體模組供應商一宇瞻科技公司，成立才一年半，漸露鋒芒。預期今年營業額將突破2．5億美元，已躍升全球前十大記憶體模組製造商；明年可望營收4億美元，前進全球前五大廠名列，擦亮自有品牌「Apacer」招牌。... 隨著營運版圖的擴大，一年半來宇瞻科技公司已由早期十多人組，增加到現在100多人公司，並在今年7月增設龍潭廠房且在美國、荷蘭都設有分公司，使Apacer記憶體模組新產品研發、生產及行銷能充份掌握。"
  From Google Translate: "Apacer Technology, a professional memory module supplier under the Acer Semiconductor Group, has only been established for a year and a half and is gradually showing its talents. Revenue this year is expected to exceed US$250 million, making it one of the top ten memory module manufacturers in the world. Next year, revenue is expected to reach US$400 million, ranking among the top five manufacturers in the world, and polishing its own brand "Apacer" brand. ... With the expansion of its operating territory, in the past year and a half, Apacer Technology has grown from a team of more than ten people in the early days to more than 100 people now. In July this year, it added a Longtan factory and has branches in the United States and the Netherlands. Apacer memory module new product development, production and marketing can be fully grasped."
5. Cao, Zhengfen 曹正芬 (2000-01-07). "宇瞻搶攻快閃記憶體卡商機網路通訊設備需求增加今年業績目標5,000萬美元" [Apacer seizes flash memory card business opportunities. Demand for network communication equipment increases; this year's performance target is US$50 million]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 30.
  The article notes: "宏碁集團轉投資公司宇瞻科技跨足快閃記憶體卡領域，由於網路、通訊設備需求增加，宇瞻將快閃記憶體卡今年業績目標訂為5,000萬美元。 ... 宇瞻為國內記憶體模組廠商，去年宣布跨入快閃記憶體卡領域，由宇瞻向業者購買快閃記憶體，自行組裝快閃記憶體卡。宇瞻當初決定跨足快閃記憶體卡，起意在於供應宏碁集團專用電腦 (XC)之需。"
  From Google Translate: "Acer Group's investment company Apacer Technology has entered the field of flash memory cards. Due to the increase in demand for network and communication equipment, Apacer has set a flash memory card performance target of US$50 million this year. ... Apacer is a domestic memory module manufacturer. Last year, it announced that it would enter the field of flash memory cards. Apacer will purchase flash memory from industry players and assemble the flash memory cards itself. Apacer originally decided to branch out into flash memory cards with the intention of supplying the Acer Group's dedicated computers (XC)."
6. Chen, Yanni 陳嬿妮 (2001-03-08). "宇瞻與聯測簽合作契約" [Apacer signs cooperation contract with Lianchai]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 26.
  The article notes: "全球第四大記憶體模組大廠宇瞻科技 (Apacer) 公司昨（7）日宣佈與聯測公司簽訂合作契約 ..."
  From Google Translate: "Apacer, the world's fourth largest memory module manufacturer, announced yesterday (7th) that it had signed a cooperation contract with Lianchai ..."
7. Lin, Maoren 林茂仁 (2004-01-27). "《《數位發燒商品》》宇瞻隨身燒精彩畫面不錯過" ["Digital Fever Products" Apacer burns with you, don’t miss the wonderful pictures]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 30.
  The article notes: "宇瞻的「隨身燒CP200」及「Audio Steno MS400隨身碟」兩款數位儲存產品，日前並雙雙獲得第十二屆「台灣精品獎」殊榮，其中「隨身燒CP200」更晉級「國家產品形象獎」，挑戰國家評鑑最高榮譽「國家產品金質獎」。宇瞻「Audio Steno MS400隨身碟」為全球首創相容於MemoryStick及Memory Stick Pro記憶卡的MP3隨身碟，目標鎖定全球超過四千萬人的Memory Stick記憶卡使用者。"
  From Google Translate: "Apacer's two digital storage products, "Portable Burner CP200" and "Audio Steno MS400 Flash Drive", recently both won the 12th "Taiwan Excellence Award". Among them, "Portable Burner CP200" was even promoted to the "National Product Image Award" , challenging the "National Product Gold Award", the highest honor in national evaluation. Apacer's "Audio Steno MS400 flash drive" is the world's first MP3 flash drive compatible with MemoryStick and Memory Stick Pro memory cards, targeting more than 40 million Memory Stick memory card users around the world."
8. Peng, Zihao 彭子豪 (2006-05-18). "宇瞻科技Tango系列隨身碟耍時尚" [Apacer Technology Tango series flash drive is fashionable]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. E3.
  The article notes: "許久沒推出新作的記憶體模組大廠－宇瞻科技（Apacer）日前推出「Tango」隨身碟系列，受到該公司過去於產品設計上具有不錯的口碑，這次推出的Tango系列在產品外觀上，確實和市場相關產品不同，賣相不差。「Tango」的外觀游走在科技與時尚的邊界，並融合資訊傳輸便利和流行時尚元素，外型硬挺陽剛外，更內建Tango軟體技術，透過「同步資料」的技術，"
  From Google Translate: "Apacer, a major memory module manufacturer that has not launched a new product for a long time, has recently launched the "Tango" flash drive series. Due to the company's good reputation for product design in the past, the Tango series launched this time has a unique appearance in terms of product appearance. It is indeed different from related products in the market, and the appearance is not bad. The appearance of "Tango" walks on the boundary between technology and fashion, and integrates information transmission convenience and popular fashion elements. It has a tough and masculine appearance, and it also has built-in Tango software technology. Through the "synchronization data" technology,"
9. Xu, Mujun 徐睦鈞 (2010-12-28). "宇瞻增加高毛利產品" [Apacer adds high-margin products]. United Evening News [zh] (in Chinese). p. B3.
  The article notes: "準上市記憶體模組股宇瞻科技 (8271)將在明天以每股21元掛牌 ... 宇瞻目前生產DRAM模組的標準型產品營收占70%，藉由徹底落實數字管理，即便在近年DRAM報價數度走弱下，獲利表現仍優於同業；而占營收比重30%的加值型產品毛利率貢獻度較高，未來將持續專注在工業用SSD市場以及數位家庭市場，預計明年加值型事業的營收比重將拉高到40%以上。"
  From Google Translate: "Apacer Technology (8271), a quasi-listed memory module stock, will be listed tomorrow at 21 yuan per share. ... Apacer currently produces 70% of its revenue from standard products of DRAM modules. By thoroughly implementing digital management, its profit performance is still better than that of its peers even when DRAM quotations have weakened several times in recent years; while Apacer accounts for 30% of its revenue. Value-added products have a high contribution to gross profit margin. In the future, they will continue to focus on the industrial SSD market and the digital home market. It is expected that the revenue proportion of value-added businesses will increase to more than 40% next year."
10. Zhou, Pinjun 周品均 (2010-12-29). "宇宇瞻上市漲幅衝3成今天好熱鬧鑫永銓櫃轉市漲0.15元弘憶新上市漲0.1元" [Apacer goes public, gains 30%. It's so lively today. Xinyongquan's new listing rose 0.15 yuan and Hongyi's new listing rose 0.1 yuan.]. United Evening News [zh] (in Chinese). p. B1.
  The article notes: "宇瞻前11月營收118.98億元，前3季稅後淨利2.92億元，每股盈餘(EPS)2.62元，雖然今年第四季動態隨機存取記憶體市況不佳，但宇瞻在毛利較高的加值型產品比重拉升的情況下，法人預期，今年EPS有望挑戰3元水準。... 宇瞻今上市開盤23.05元最高27.9元最低23元成交6460張"
  From Google Translate: "Apacer's revenue in the first November was 11.898 billion yuan, its net profit after tax in the first three quarters was 292 million yuan, and its earnings per share (EPS) was 2.62 yuan. Although the DRAM market conditions were not good in the fourth quarter of this year, Apacer's gross profit was higher With the proportion of value-added products increasing, the legal person expects that this year's EPS is expected to challenge the 3 yuan level. ... Apacer went public today. The opening price was 23.05 yuan, the highest was 27.9 yuan, the lowest was 23 yuan, and 6,460 contracts were traded."
11. Chen, Fuxia 陳復霞 (2017-05-19). "宇瞻科技成立20周年奠基工控第一" [Apacer Technology's 20th Anniversary, Laying the Foundation for the First Place in Industrial Control]. CTimes (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The article notes: "宇瞻科技(Apacer)歡慶成立20周年。宇瞻科技1997年創立，以持續打造最佳品質與效能兼具的創新領導產品，屢獲世界級肯定。自2012年起，連續四年蟬聯Gartner評比全球第一工業用固態硬碟供應商，奠基工控市場的領先地位。"
  From Google Translate: "Apacer celebrates its 20th anniversary. Founded in 1997, Apacer Technology continues to create innovative and leading products with the best quality and performance, and has repeatedly won world-class recognition. Since 2012, it has been ranked as the world's No. 1 industrial solid-state drive supplier by Gartner for four consecutive years, establishing its leading position in the industrial control market."
12. Sun, Yuliang 孙玉亮 (2013-01-04). "宇瞻张家騉:服务+创新深挖高利润行业" [Apacer Zhang Jiaqing: Service + Innovation to dig deep into high-profit industries]. ZOL [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The article notes: "Apacer宇瞻科技成立于1997年，初期公司以DRAM模组的专业供货商为定位，将经营聚焦在「记忆存储」。凭着对半导体垂直整合的完整内存模组技术能力与专业营销业务，成功在全球打出Apacer自有品牌，并于1999年成为全球第四大内存模组厂商。企业总部位于中国台湾，在上海设有宇瞻电子（上海）有限公司。此外在美国、欧洲、日本、印度等地设有分公司。"
  From Google Translate: "Apacer Technology was founded in 1997. In the early days, the company positioned itself as a professional supplier of DRAM modules and focused its business on "memory storage." With its complete memory module technology capabilities and professional marketing business in vertically integrating semiconductors, Apacer successfully launched its own brand around the world and became the world's fourth largest memory module manufacturer in 1999 . The company is headquartered in Taiwan, China, and has Apacer Electronics (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. in Shanghai. In addition, it has branches in the United States, Europe, Japan, India and other places."
13. Zhang, Xuhong 張旭宏 (2010-10-15). "台股宇瞻科技通過上市審議股價2天漲逾1成全年營收上看130億元" [Apacer Technology passes listing review, stock price rises by more than 10% in 2 days, annual revenue reaches 13 billion yuan]. 頭條新聞 [cnYES] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The article notes: "宇瞻科技成立於1997年，主要從事記憶體模組製造銷售，產品包含記憶體模組(DRAM Module)、快閃記憶體相關產品(如快閃記憶儲存卡、快閃碟、消費性儲存控制器、嵌入式快閃記憶體模組、可摧式多媒體儲存裝置)、動態隨機存取記憶體、快閃記憶體等，... 全球第七大DRAM Module廠，2009年市佔率約4.4%，市場結構為內銷佔28%、亞洲佔34%、歐洲佔24%、美洲14%。"
  From Google Translate: "Apacer Technology was founded in 1997 and is mainly engaged in the manufacturing and sales of memory modules. Its products include DRAM Modules, flash memory related products (such as flash memory cards, flash disks, and consumer storage controllers). , embedded flash memory modules, destructible multimedia storage devices), dynamic random access memory, flash memory, etc., ... Currently, the company is the seventh largest DRAM Module manufacturer in the world, with a market share of approximately 4.4% in 2009. The market structure is domestic sales accounting for 28%, Asia 34%, Europe 24%, and Americas 14%."
14. Product reviews:
  1. Chuenprasaeng, Paisal (2003-09-07). "pacer Audio steno Bp300: Apace sets the pace for tunes". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
    The review notes: "Apacer Audio Steno BP300 is a beautifully designed three-in-one device capable of playing digital music, recording and serving as a mobile hard disk. Despite all these features, it has a reasonable price of only Bt4,000."
  2. Yap, Nigel (2002-04-11). "Portable storage media for PCs and notebooks". New Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
    The review notes: "All in all, the Apacer Handy Drive is a useful device to have around, especially if you are tired of floppy drives. It is portable, small, and can hold quite a a good deal of data. This is especially so if you are to purchase the one-gigabyte (GB) version of the Apacer Handy Drive which will cost RM3,000. The setback is when you want to transfer files to machines running on Windows 98 and below as you would need to have the driver files."
  3. "The road warrior's CD writer continues to grow apace: Slow down". British Journal of Photography. Vol. 150, no. 7432. 2003-06-04. p. 11. ProQuest 1673730224.
    The review notes: "As things stand, with a price tag of just under £200 (before VAT) the Apacer is attractively positioned, but not exceptionally so. It is therefore significant to report that the drive comes with its own padded case, which is a definite bonus. Although a CompactFlash card was mentioned above, the drive has a six-type card reader that also accepts MMC/SD, Memory Stick, ...One observation that I had not come across until I tried the Apacer was the incompatibility that appears to exist between older CD writers and the latest high speed discs, but not vice versa. So whereas my own La Cie drive, which has an 18x maximum write speed, was uncomfortable with 48x TDK discs, the Apacer, despite only being able to write at up to 24x, was perfectly contented."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Apacer (Chinese: 宇瞻科技股份有限公司) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to get a second (or third or fourth) opinion on these newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources found by Cunard. Mccapra (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per newly finded sources; the page is notable --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Zarah (entertainer). Star Mississippi 00:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Woman (song)[edit]

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

Does not establish notability. The references in the article appear to be either primary sources or cannot be considered reliable due to the lack of editorial oversight within their staff. A quick check before the nomination showed no better sources that could be included, nor any other indicators of notability like a chart appearance. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zarah: Found no coverage myself. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zarah (entertainer) – fails WP:NSONG, all the sources are either primary interviews, or non-RS paid-for promotion sites. Richard3120 (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 00:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Parenti[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 French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The best I could find was this from Treize Mondial, which is only a couple of sentences. JTtheOG (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pro footballer who played in the Super League, sourced.Fleets (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided: Playes for Catalans and there should be more written about him. Should be expanded, but currently not sufficient coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 18:13, 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) 18:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Participation-based athlete criteria, which the sole keep !vote is based on, were deprecated 2 years ago. JTtheOG (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:09, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

146th Air Support Operations Squadron[edit]

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

It exists but there is limited coverage (article currently unreferenced, with some possible sources which could be added). I couldn't see that it meets WP:ORG / WP:GNG in its own right, or a suitable merge target. Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick WP:BEFORE shows plenty of sources exist. [56][57][58][59][60] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources are really independent of the subject. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hawkeye7, though this page does need some cleanup Claire 26 (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

A Redirect to 137th Special Operations Wing is cheap and keeps the entire page history intact. We don't conclude keep on an article which has no reliable independent sourcing, no matter how many bolded keep assertions are made. I assert redirect to the parent unit's page until direct detailing in multiple and diverse reliable sources is presented and inserted. BusterD (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major unit with plenty of sources. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Major unit? Eight aircraft? What sources do you have that this is a major unit. Assertions are not proof. At the risk of being accused of !voting twice, there are zero sources applied to the page, and none of the links provided by worthy Hawkeye7 meet independence of the subject. Even a wp:sportsperson requires at least a single source which directly details. Here we have none, nothing, nada. This discussion cannot be closed as keep without sourcing which meets RS. BusterD (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not have to be applied to the page; it is sufficient that they exist. I have supplied a short list of web sites (eg [61]) referencing the subject and the claim that they are not wikipedia:Independent sources is the only assertion without proof here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the presented sources meets independence because (as you are fully aware), each is an official US military source. "Official United States Air Force Website" on the bottom of each of these af.mil sources makes them connected. ok.ng.mil is another connected source. afspecialwarfare.com is a third. www.dvidshub.net actually says it's a US Department of Defense website. The burden is on those asserting keep who must demonstrate such sources exist, User:Hawkeye7. I'm only asking for IRS; that's policy. I don't dispute the unit is verified; I merely hold to standards of inclusion to which the community has agreed. BusterD (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "major unit" in British military terminology (I'm British) is a designation for a battalion-sized unit commanded by a lieutenant-colonel. In other words, one covered by WP:MILUNIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that definition; I'm often woefully underinformed, which why I try to rely on policy, guideline, and inline citation. I was confused (by what I thought of your use of a superlative). Every editor in this discussion is a more accomplished content creator than I am, but nobody has actually applied these connected sources to the pagespace. For my part I'm only on this page as a passing editor looking to close a triple relist; during my reading I developed an opinion. I wasn't going to supervote but I also wasn't going along when I disagreed in principle. I'm not going to force this issue further. BusterD (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I've added a few independent reliable sources [62], [63], [64] to help pass the the GNG guidelines. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wz. 89 Puma[edit]

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

Unclear why this shortlived Polish camouflage pattern would be notable, sources are primary or passing it seems. Fram (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Fashion, and Poland. Fram (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It would be nice to hear a critique of the existing sources in more detail. My BEFORE found one RS, with SIGCOV (a paragraph): http://pngs.nowogard.eu/images/Taktyka/Maciej-Dojlitko-strony--1-101.pdf (a Polish academic book on camo). I know it is just one source, but if we consider sources present, borderline notability may appear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The consensus is the subject fails to meet the WP:GNG guideline for significant coverage -- none has been demonstrated from any source. Additionally, there is some doubt that even the SNG for WP:NMOTORSPORT has been met. The article can be recreated if significant coverage is found or If an editor wants to work on a Draft version of this article, you can contact me or inquire at WP:REFUND. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katsunori Iketani[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline. current sources in article are databases. search only finds other databases and this, which spells his name 2 different ways...? ltb d l (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. ltb d l (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Weak because article creator or editors could've done more such as add results rather than leave it a single sentence stub article. Japanese Wikipedia hints that he may was a driver of a national level but like this, does not provide context too. Digging further, looking at his result database on JAF (source), he may as well pass criteria 4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT as he had some sucesses in top level national racing. A selection of highlights in his career as below.

A class win at the 1995 All Japan Grand Touring Car Championship
A top 5 season finish at the 1996 All Japan Grand Touring Car Championship
Throughout that decade, he made consistent appearances.

SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the Japanese article has the same sources as the English one – the article can't be kept on race results alone, there needs to be some independent, substantive coverage. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of having subject-specific guidelines is that verifying that a subject meets that criteria means that their article is kept. In this case, I agree with SpacedFarmer that he meets criteria 4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT. He also meets criteria 2 since he completed the 1988 season of the World Sportscar Championship (by which point the series was a professional racing series). Therefore, I also !vote keep on this article. DCsansei (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is absolutely not the purpose of SNGs (WP:SNG). SNGs are indicators of when a subject is likely to be notable. Articles still need to meet the GNG: if there are no usable sources, there cannot be an article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the guideline you cite: "topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article". Unless you've done a review of Japanese motorsports print coverage from the 80s and 90s, I don't think we've established that "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found" to overrule the SNG. DCsansei (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't prove a negative. We're at AfD, it's on the keep !voters to present sources. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have a different definition of presumed. I define it as meaning that we assume something to be true, meaning that if a subject verifiably passes an SNG, we assume that they merit an article. Per WP:SNG: "The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic" and "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."

Generally, in a AfD, the onus would be on keep !voters. Given the presumption of notability if a subject passes an SNG, that onus is reversed when that becomes the case per WP:SNG. DCsansei (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I can't find any sources whatsoever. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary, but as I cannot be reasonably expected to provide evidence of an absence, we will have to presume that is a fact for now. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, unless you're stating you've comprehensively reviewed print sources from the 80s/90s and were unable to find significant coverage, we'll have to presume that the subject is notable per WP:SNG. DCsansei (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I have. What a tragedy, Iketani's article deleted because nobody could find a source... how could we allow this to happen to somebody so unquestionably notable? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@5225C: Indeed I have – So you speak Japanese and have done in-depth searches in 1980s Japanese racing magazine archives and Japanese newspaper archives? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't just speak it, I'm fluent in it, and the check wasn't just in-depth, it was comprehensive. You could prove me wrong, of course, by presenting examples of these sources you speak of. You won't, obviously, because no such sources exist. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@5225C: Could you provide a list of some of the 1980s Japan newspapers / magazines you comprehensively searched, and how you found them? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive means all of them. If you think I've missed something, I'm open to being proven wrong with a few examples of reliable sources. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@5225C: If you looked at every Japanese newspaper in existence, then surely it should be easy to list a few of them that you searched, no? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment above that he meets criteria 2 and 4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT. DCsansei (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until non-database sources with significant coverage can be presented. While I am sympathetic to the potential of there being offline, likely Japanese-language sources existing, those of us on enwiki who do not speak Japanese should not be burdened with having to find those sources. Until evidence of those sources existing can be found, what exists is purely database in nature. Nothing exists with which to write encyclopedic content in English or Japanese. The subject does not, with the sources available, meet the WP:GNG. The SNG section also says "Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG ... may still be deleted ..., especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found...." Wikipedia is not a database. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDATABASE does not cover entries for sportspeople. "those of us on enwiki who do not speak Japanese should not be burdened with having to find those sources." I don't speak Japanese but I don't have much issues with it either, having held subscriptions to some car magazines in the past. Wikipedians write annual pages about sumo wrestling despite most of these sources being in Japanese too. "Until evidence of those sources existing can be found, what exists is purely database in nature. Nothing exists with which to write encyclopedic content in English or Japanese." There are offline books and magazines. So, you are saying we need sources in English language for it to pass notability in English Wikipedia, am I right? SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's insane. the not policy covers everything. ltb d l (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This policy is intended for lists, not articles about people. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
where on earth did you get that notion? ltb d l (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I seen it being used on nominations for lists, this is the first I seen being used against a bio of a person. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Japanese but I don't have much issues with it either, having held subscriptions to some car magazines in the past.

huh????

There are offline books and magazines. So, you are saying we need sources in English language for it to pass notability in English Wikipedia, am I right?

that is obviously not what he said. ltb d l (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

may be deleted – not absolutely required no matter what. Common sense is a policy, which is at a higher level and should hold more weight than guidelines such as GNG. If someone is presumed notable and no one has done any searches whatsoever in the areas where sources are highly likely to be found (waiting on 5225C for confirmation), then the article should stand. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – None of these hypothetical sources exist. It's blatantly obvious that this fails the GNG. SNG are an indication that sources probably exist, they don't make an article immune to challenges on the basis of notability – and, in this case, the corresponding sources have not and will not materialise. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide an answer to @BeanieFan11's question above listing some of the 1980s offline/Japanese newspapers and magazines you comprehensively reviewed since this AfD started? I think that would be helpful given that you want to overrule Iketani's presumption of notability from meeting multiple SNG criteria? Thanks! DCsansei (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
burden is a policy. thanks! ltb d l (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Content policy, yes, which isn't relevant since I'm not arguing for anything to be added to an article. I'm simply repeating the question of what 1980s Japan newspapers / magazines were comprehensively searched to overturn the presumption created under the relevant SNG. DCsansei (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you missed my point. the burden is on the person wanting to keep the article to find sources. asking people to search for 1980s japanese newspapers to maybe possibly bring them over to your side is preposterous. ltb d l (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While that's true generally to prove significant coverage under GNG, that's not the case under an SNG. Unless you're contesting that he meets the WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria, there's a presumption of notability unless "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found".

By definition, a presumption means that the burden has been flipped to those who wish to override the presumption. DCsansei (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From our own article:

In law, a presumption is an "inference of a particular fact". There are two types of presumptions: rebuttable presumptions and irrebuttable (or conclusive) presumptions. A rebuttable presumption will either shift the burden of production (requiring the disadvantaged party to produce some evidence to the contrary) or the burden of proof (requiring the disadvantaged party to show the presumption is wrong); in short, a fact finder can reject a rebuttable presumption based on other evidence. Conversely, a conclusive/irrebuttable presumption cannot be challenged by contradictory facts or evidence. Sometimes, a presumption must be triggered by a predicate fact—that is, the fact must be found before the presumption applies.

Given that SNG create a presumption of notability, the burden has flipped. DCsansei (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how any of that works. The GNG is not subservient to or negated by the existence of an SNG. This exact situation has been discussed at VP numerous times and probably countless times elsewhere. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there's a presumption of notability unless "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found".

*cough* *cough* ltb d l (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A presumption of notability needs to mean something. It is preposterous that that can be overrided when no one has done any sort of appropriate search whatsoever (not voting keep yet since I haven't confirmed 5225C's doing of this, although I'm starting to have my doubts) – as that essentially means the SNGs are literally 100% worthless. It doesn't make sense that one can delete something on something clearly of significance with zero effort to look in the right places whatsoever, hence why SNGs exist. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so you're so worried about doing an appropriate search? do it yourself. ltb d l (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doing an appropriate search would require me at minimum learning Japanese, and likely traveling to Japan and paying to look at 1980s newspaper archives – in five days, something that is clearly not possible for me to do. Now, if there's an archive of 1980s Japanese racing magazines and newspapers online, then simply looking at that would be sufficient. But as far as I'm aware such a site does not exist. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
something that is clearly not possible for me to do

and there's the problem.

you can't find the sources, but you believe they exist, so you ask others to search for them to prove your point.

isn't that a little crazy? ltb d l (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He passes the SNG. As such, the burden should be on those trying to get it deleted to at least make an effort to look in appropriate places before making claims that he is not notable. No, it is not crazy at all. It is common sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, he passes some arbitrary criteria? so he just has to have sources covering him? ltb d l (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? It states that coverage is highly likely to exist. We know that coverage is highly likely to exist, and so, that fact stands unless someone actually looks and determines otherwise. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you seem to think that "highly likely" means "certainly". ltb d l (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that it is inappropriate to delete highly likely notable articles when no one has done any searches whatsoever. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
screw it. we're never going to convince each other. you keep your article and i'll try and destroy it. sound good? ltb d l (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG either in Japanese or English. Let'srun (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @BeanieFan11:, in your reply to me on May 8th, you've effectively said that if we can't prove a negative (that sources don't exist, while no one has proven that they do exist), we should ignore all rules but yet also you're saying here that we need to follow SNGs and give it more weight than the GNG? That makes no sense to me. Furthermore, how exactly are 5225C or other potential delete !voters supposed to satisfy your arbitrary demand for proving this negative? Do we have to learn Japanese in 2 days? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
管理者にあと7日くれと頼めばいい。それで十分だ。 ltb d l (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostOfDanGurney: Its as simple as this: we have someone presumed notable. If someone does not look for sources, then that presumption of notability is not successfully rebutted and the article gets kept. To successfully rebut the presumption, a search should be done in sources from the person's language when they were active. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what is at present, a clear fail of the GNG? I'm not opposing recreation once (or if) sources are located. But at present, we cannot write an encyclopedic article from what are purely database sources. Our job is not to recreate DriverDB, but to write an encyclopedia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One can not say that an article fails GNG when no search whatsoever has been conducted in the appropriate areas. I don't see how this is so difficult to understand. The presumption of notability exists for a reason: it is to prevent notable people from being deleted when poor or no searches were conducted at all by those wanting the article to be deleted. The only way to rebut the presumption is to show that an appropriate search was conducted. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot possibly cite NEXIST when not one single keep !voter has proven the existence of any sources. Remember that we have no deadlines and the article can always be recreated when significant coverage is found. Until then, this article fails WP:NOT as a database entry. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also NODEADLINE to delete articles that as of now you cannot find coverage for. There's a presumption of notability for a reason and it needs to hold weight – as otherwise it is wholly useless. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't keep articles that go against policies such as NOT because of the hypothetical existence of sources that no one has been able to find after 3 weeks at AfD and the whole article's existence. "Presumptions" can only go so far before we have to apply "common sense" ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that presumptions only go so far. However, your implication that rebutting such a presumption can be done by simply saying "fails GNG" without any attempt to find sources whatsoever would mean its not a presumption at all! Also, deletion is not cleanup. Would you mind saying how this is a "summary-only description of a work", "lyrics database", "excessive listing of unexplained statistics", or an "exhaustive log of software updates" (what NOTDB applies to)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the present sourcing, the only thing that can be added to the article which passes WP:V would be raw statistics such as results tables. That would count against both "excessive listing of unexplained statistics" and the wording at the top paragraph of WP:NOTDB which says "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

We cannot explain why the statistics are significant without significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, the statistics have not been added. One cannot claim that this fails NOT as an "excessive listing of unexplained statistics" when there's no statistics in the article! BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's literally a one-liner stub otherwise. I started my last reply with "With the present sourcing...," which should have been meant to be in the context of what exists, not just what is in the article. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, you cannot say that what is currently in the article is all that exists when no one has looked at any sources from the time... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could go back and repeat my-self again too, but then we'd just be talking in circles and people might see that as WP:BLUDGEONING. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

genuinely, where are we supposed to find 1980s japanese newspapers? ltb d l (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~That burden ~~falls~~ should fall on those trying to delete the article when the subject is presumed notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) edit 00:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
i'm gonna go bang my head against a wall if that's ok with you. ltb d l (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~I don't know what to say anymore, either. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
seriously, you're just admitting you don't know where sources are and you believe they exist. ltb d l (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~And? I don't have access to every source in the world, but I know enough that I can tell if a subject is likely to be covered. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
i'm not taking a flight to japan for you. ltb d l (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly fine; but it means that you can't say with certainty that historic figures from the Japan aren't notable, since no search in the language – where coverage is most likely to be – was performed. I've repeated myself enough... BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Sorry, I've over-commented here. Striking my recent posts and taking a step back. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so until i go to japan and dig through archives notability is presumed? christ. ltb d l (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Items 2 & 4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT are also not met. Item 2 requires at least one season's participation in a major series. Looking at several databases he only competed at Fuji in the 1988 World Sportscar Championship so didn't participate for the whole season. Item 4 requires an overall win, so a class win (13th overall) in the 1995 All Japan Grand Touring Car Championship doesn't count, nor does a class place of 5th in the overall positions for the 1996 All Japan Grand Touring Car Championship, especially as that class only had 5 competitors. --John B123 (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Indian films of 2024. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trikanya[edit]

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

I can't find much sources that this film establishes notability per WP:NFILM. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The movie fails to meet WP:GNG due to the absence of significant in-depth coverage. Additionally, it lacks reviews from national critics, failing WP:NPOL. Grabup (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOL? I see that is a mistake. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have voted to redirect it to List of Odia films of 2024 but such page has not been created yet. Film exists but lacks reviews, receptions and coverage about the film, cast and crew. RangersRus (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Indian films of 2024: The list of Odia films does not exist for 2024. If sources are presented, obviously, not opposed to K. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:04, 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!} 03:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buchanan Corner, Indiana[edit]

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

Google incorrectly claims this to be a township, but the GHits are all clickbait except for a find-a-grave result or two; GBooks literally produces nothing but GNIS predecessors and a single hit to a county history (which does not pan out) before tossing out nonsense. The oldest topo I looked at labels a Buchanan School at the intersection, replaced in the next by the Buchanan Corner label. The coords, btw, are considerably off, as seems to be a feature of many Clay County locations. Anyway, there's nothing here and no documentation at all of the place besides the topos/GNIS. Mangoe (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lewis Township, Clay County, Indiana per nom. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Mangoe (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without further information this is just an intersection. GNIS is nothing. Redirect makes no sense because this seems an implausible search term and there is nothing at the Lewis Township article but a mention of this place's existence in a list. Existence is not notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

●Comment- This is The Location of A Cemetary 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Find-a-grave is NOT a reliable source (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Find_a_Grave and WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL) and it should not be added. The coordinates in the link you added are in the middle of a field and there's no images, so maybe don't use that?

Delete Not a notable community, just a named intersection. Reywas92^Talk 01:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are NO GUIDLINES stating that family cemeteries can not be mentioned in a Wikipedia article. And those cemeteries I listed prove notability, just because there is a lack of online resources does not mean there is no offline sources. The Cemeteries need to be mentioned so that users who have access to those offline sources can list them. All the information on those cemetery pages on find-agrave can be verified, but the only way for that to happen is if they are mentioned. I Will be reporting you for disruptive editing if you continue to remove information & sources showing notability, the fact that there is multiple hort paragraphs about the Cemeteries shows that there is enough information out there to include them in this article. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue to remove unreliable sources! No, we should absolutely not be listing family gravesites on Wikipedia, that is not important content, especially when from an unreliable source. What, are you going to list the names of pupils and teachers that are in the book too? Existence of a cemetery is NOT notability for a placename. Reywas92^Talk 15:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep- I Found this, that shows notablility. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, do not add unreliable sources!!! Do NOT use Find-A-Grave! Even if offline sources could verify it, that does not mean you should add these crappy links, nor copy-and-paste the copyrighted text there! A family plot of two or maybe three people should not be listed in Wikipedia anyway! That hardly even counts as a cemetery for your new "Buchanan Corner is the location of 2 cemeteries". And do not keep readding this crappy site or crappy hometownlocator! Reywas92^Talk 14:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I NEVER PASTED COPYRIGHTED TEXT, I CHANGED IT USING QUILL BOT, YOU HAVE BEEN REPORTED, AND YES EXISTENCE OF A CEMETERY IS NOTABILITY FOR A PLACE NAME, MANY PREVOUS AFD's HAVE RESULTED AS KEEP DUE TO THE EXISTENCE OF CEMETERIES, SCHOOLS, ETC. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And placesnamed.com is not listed in the list for sources to not be used so it is an acceptable source to be used on wikipedia. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Everything under Cemeteries you literally copied and pasted from findagrave, which is in fact copyrighted. No, you are wrong. Cemeteries are ubiquitous and their mere existence does not establish notability, especially when the only source is the unreliable findagrave. Find a reliable source with significant coverage and that could be more helpful.

The list Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is "non-exhaustive" and only those that have been discussed multiple times. You need to familiarize yourself with WP:RS if you want to edit here. Moreover, what does this source add? Why did you add it? It obviously just copied data from the GNIS, which is already in the article, so if you think it contributes information or notability, you are wrong. Reywas92^Talk 15:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no i did not copy and paste from find a grave, i changed the text using quilbot, some phrases may be the same but over-all it is a different set of paragraphs, i am done arguing. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 new sources for the cemeteries:

https://graveviews.com/cemetery/david-puckett-family-cemetery-84607

https://graveviews.com/cemetery/puckett-cemetery-84608 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PARAPHRASE. Holy cow you are bad at source analysis. Did you read the text there? They say the same thing as findagrave! They are not new sources, they are the same sources! https://graveviews.com/about says the site is also WP:UGC. It is not reliable, useful, or a basis for notability. Look at the coordinates, these are the same family plot, not even two separate cemeteries! Again, if "only David, Leannah, and possibly 1 child were buried there", that's not something worth mentioning here! That's weird and you need to stop doing this here or elsewhere! My great-uncle and his wife are buried on their own property, that doesn't make it a whole cemetery or worth including on Wikipedia, nor does that make their neighborhood notable. Reywas92^Talk 17:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To make a much more-to-the-point remark about the cemetery: it proves nothing more than that there are people buried there. Every time I head out to Damascus I go by the "Seals Family Cemetery", and it's just a plot on the edge of a farm field by the woods. Mt. Zion Cemetery, near my church, is across the intersection from the Methodist church of the same name, but both are just out in the country by themselves. The same thing goes for schools: there is a Pindell School Rd. near here, but thee was never a town on that road. We've also had cases whee the supposed town was a single store. It cannot be inferred that there was a settlement at a place simply because of a single building or the like commonly found in/near towns. Mangoe (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Good point and I agree Cigarettes are Safe (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC) — Cigarettes are Safe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]

Comment The two entries on findagrave.com appear to be the same site. One entry used the Indiana Genealogical Society and state listings, the other a personal visit, unsurprisingly giving slightly different co-ordinates, sadly not reconised as duplication or reconciled by findagrave.com. According to the record of a personal visit, two people are known to be buried there, a third is possible, and it's unknown if a fourth was moved there as apparently once intended; that's all. The graveviews.com entries are not independent, they are identical to the findagrave.com entries; one site is scraping the other. The text added to our article was identical to the two findagrave.com entries (one truncated) and not a paraphrase, both times it was added, and I've requested revdel of those copyright violations. NebY (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I agree with Mangoe. I add to the delete argument the fact that the place is not listed in "From Needmore to Prosperity : Hoosier place names in folklore and history" [65]. I cannot find any mention in newspapers, and there is only one "reliable source" brought to dicussion. That book that has already been linked here by gamerboy. I point out this book is about Buchanan district, which contains, probably, Buchanan Corner. I further argue it's likely the place that is subject of this WP article did not exist at the time the book was published. This is because the book doesn't mention this place. I further suspect the district itself was later named after the school, and used retrospectively by the author of that book. I assert the place this article about wasn't named until the roads were built, possibly after 1916 when the book was published. Since that book isn't about the place written about here on wikipedia, it is not a proper source. I believe the general area may be known by the locals using this name as there are mentions of it as an "unincorporated community" but there are no reliable sources that support or refute this. I also remind everyone that plenty of schools exist in rural areas, as do cemeteries. (What would we do if the school hadn't been called Buchanan?, would it still be an argument then?) Probably the school gave it's name to the intersection. But also remember this school is always cited as being on private land in the source that gamerboy provided, which calls into question whether it is in fact a government provided school. Finally, the source that everyone keeps arguing about is about Buchanan district, not necessarily this corner.James.folsom (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a source Cigarettes are Safe (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC) — Cigarettes are Safe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hometown Locator is a GNIS mirror, it's not a reliable source for calling something a populated place or unincorporated community. –dlthewave ☎ 15:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not true. Cigarettes are Safe (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC) — Cigarettes are Safe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]

What do you mean? WP:GNIS has been discussed extensively and found to be unreliable for this purpose. Are you saying that Hometown Locator isn't just scraping and republishing that database? –dlthewave ☎ 15:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of a notable community there previously and even less so now – the source for a schoolhouse was from 1916 and the description of it in our article as "current" was not supported. NebY (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of a past or current community. The book source covers "Buchanan District" with no indication that it's the same thig as Buchanan Corner. –dlthewave ☎ 15:36, 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 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!} 03:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanh Cong Dinh[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. These links are all garbage. This person is a research assistant, not the lead researcher. Jb45424 (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Science, Vietnam, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What the nom said, and what I noted in the edit summaries, and then there's the human level--why would you lower yourself to this. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thato Lebang[edit]

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

Judoka with lots of sources in the article, though most of them contain trivial mentions of the subject or no mention at all. The only thing approaching WP:SIGCOV I found was this, which would not be enough on its own to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Botswana. JTtheOG (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage mainly is passing mentions and articles about event participation. He's not even mentioned in some of the references. The International Judo Federation shows him with 6 victories in 33 matches [66] and no medals in 27 events. His 3 appearances at the world championships resulted in no wins, with losses in the rounds of either 64 or 128. His three matches lasted a combined total of less than 3 minutes. Papaursa (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @Papaursa. 48JCL 19:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo/Vanity page for non notable athlete. Doesn't even meet WP:MANOTE. Also sourcing doesn't pass WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 00:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto Wong[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable baseball career with no statistics, and no coverage outside playing city (Turin). 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 19:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, Italy, and Cuba. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the obituaries were published by several news outlets: TorinoToday, Repubblica, RaiNews, La Stampa, Corriere. It seems enough to justify GNG, but I found very little pre-death coverage. Broc (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources above basically parrot each other in eulogizing him and mentioning that a relative plays for the Texas Rangers. There's nothing about Wong's career while he never played in a top-flight league. It's not enough to even establish WP:SPORTCRIT. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 21:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We really need some more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 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 keep‎ without prejudice to further discussion about what parts of the article should be moved to where. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italian language in Romania[edit]

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

Not really about the Italian language in Romania. It’s mostly a coatrack about Italians in Romania and about the similarities between Romanian and Italian. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, Italy, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Italians in Romania per WP:ATD. Most of the article seems to be about Italians in Romania, with only a fraction about what the article should be about. Thus merge it and move the content actually about the the Romanian and Italian languages to a section of Italians in Romania or a section under Romanian or Italian. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and per Flemmish Nietzsche. Article is not mainly of its topic and has a lot of unsourced information. I don't think the topic is notable to justify its split from Italians in Romania, it's not like the language is very present in the country. Super Ψ Dro 22:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep part of it, merge the rest. The sections on the languages should be kept. The various sections about other topics, like Italian Emigration to Romania, belong in the article for Italians in Romania. I can see an argument for merging the language sections with that article but I do think that the language elements are worthy of their own article. Lamona (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why is Italians in Romania a preferable redirect target over Languages of Romania? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italian isn't listed there as a language used in Romania. I don't know why that is, but it seems to be based on something like census data. If Italian doesn't show in official statistics it probably shouldn't be addressed there. Lamona (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the latest census, there are 4105 native speakers of Italian in Romania. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the use of a language in a country would intuitively be covered in the existing article for the minority speaking that language in the country. Super Ψ Dro 22:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep part of it, merge the rest. per Lamona. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Keep part of it, merge the rest"? I'm sorry but XFDcloser doesn't do this. If you vote "Keep", you can go ahead with a Merge on your own. But I can't close this as Keep and Merge, you have to pick one or the other outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the comparative linguistics main topic is well sourced and notable. The narrative about Italian people in Romania is largely irrelevant here, and should be trimmed down and/or moved to the Italians in Romania page, if applicable, but that's an editorial issue irrelevant to this AfD. I believe this is also what Lamona and Cyclopia meant with their "Keep/merge" !vote, but they'll correct me if I misread their intention. Owen× ☎ 12:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are spot on. Lamona (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, let’s move to Comparison of Italian and Romanian, which is not the same thing as the current title. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, domnul Biruitorul. But to do that, we must first keep the content of this article with this AfD. Once closed as Keep, I support you renaming it as you propose, which better reflects the content we wish to keep, after the rest has been merged into Italians in Romania. Basically, what an AfD has to decide is whether the subject the page aims to cover is encyclopedic. Both the content and the title can be changed based on editorial choice, the first by editing and the second by a simple move; neither require deletion. Owen× ☎ 23:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. As an editor argues, this might just be TOOSOON and at some point in the future, an article could be warranted given more reliable sourcing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zerry DL[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, then fails WP:GNG. Article is almost entirely made from utterly unreliable blogs, some do no mention the subject at all. And being the brother of the notable Shallipopi doesn’t inherently makes him notable too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even so, TurnTable charts is no longer regarded as a reliable chart. @T.C.G. [talk] 16:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who told you TurnTable charts is no longer reliable. I think you are voting based on hate. Pls reconsider it. Thank You 2RDD (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, to be clear, there's nothing to hate. I've created quite a bunch of music related articles and I have also cited Turntable charts on a draft which got declined, I had to add a billboard chart before it got accepted. I got feedback that TurnTable is not identified as reliable music chart here [67] which makes it unreliable till there's concensus. @T.C.G. [talk] 18:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay bro, that's means Zerry DL maybe deleted. Just hearing that turntable is unreliable thanks for the information. 2RDD (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any professional relationship with the artists, record labels, distributors on which you're making edits for? The presence of personal/professional relation is a cause for conflict of interest. A talent manager making edits on a subject they represent would be considered undisclosed paid editing unless they specifically disclose the company/person who is paying the editor, and whom the edit is made on behalf of. Graywalls (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Majority of the sources cited in the article are press release write-up about the subject's musical releases. It is simply WP:TOOSOON for the subject to have a stand-alone article at this time. He is still an up-and-coming artist who hasn't made a name for himself just yet, and is simply known as being the younger brother of a notable artist. @TheChineseGroundnut: Just because the article you submitted to AFC was declined doesn't mean that Turntable isn't notable. You probably didn't include reliable sources discussing the album. Simply having an album or song chart doesn't mean that it is notable. An album or song still needs to be discussed in reliable sources to justify a separate article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't open the link I sent did you? Well, here it is [68]. @T.C.G. [talk] 23:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheChineseGroundnut Just to be clear, TurnTable Charts is reliable and notable, I take them for that, and mostly review articles based on that. The AfC reviewer isn’t aware and only made assumptions that it isn’t regarded as a reliable chart. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Not everyone thinks the same tho. Some drafts could still get declined If it's cited with only turntable as chart, just like my previous experience. It probably still needs concensus. @T.C.G. [talk] 09:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources can mean more than one thing. A court record or public agency press release saying John Smith from City of Nowhere plead guilty to assault is not a reliable source for anyone named John Smith, because it doesn't properly identify which John Smith it is. A local rag sheet which cites this source and says the owner of Smith Nursery John Smith from Nowhereville pled guilty to assault is a reliable source that someone named John Smith pled guilty and that it's the owner of that nursery in that town. This is reliable source for the claim of fact, because a secondary source (the rag sheet) interpreted the primary source (court records). However, reliably fact reporting is not a reliable indication of notability for him or his business. Graywalls (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I recently added multiple sources to help verify WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. The artist already has songs chart on many country charts. Greybliss (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the sources you added are unreliable WP:RUNOFTHEMILL sources and do not count towards GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough to meet GNG. Graywalls (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guatemalan Dogo[edit]

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

Only managed to find trivial mentions of the breed being included in lists of banned breeds, I did ask on Wikiproject Guatemala about possible Spanish sources but I've realised that the project is quite inactive. I'm hoping someone familiar with Spanish will be able to confirm if general notability is met with Spanish sources or not. If notability cannot be established I'm in favour of a redirect to list of dog breeds Traumnovelle (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Guatemala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 24 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!} 00:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I feel that this AfD might result in a soft delete as a result of expiring.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 00:59, 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 without prejudice against creation of a Cahan & Associates article, if properly sourced, with the content of the deleted page as a starting point for the draft. Owen× ☎ 11:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Cahan[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARCHITECT and WP:BASIC. The two external links are broken/outdated. No inline citations to any claims. Article is written like a resume. Edit history indicates COI. News search/scholar is minimal. Recommend delete. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and California. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely fails WP:ARCHITECT and WP:BASIC. No sourcing whatsoever. Does indeed read like a resume, but in an unfocused way. Just a rambling stream of what this individual did with their various interests. — Maile (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No hits in Google for this person; this reads like a personal web page. Not suitable for wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Cahan & Associates. The design firm he founded is definitely notable. Quotes below are the abstracts from ProQuest.

Baggerman, Lisa (1999). "Annuals with style". How. 14 (2): 142. ProQuest 233342555.
Pruzan, Todd (1999). "Hungry minds". Print. 53 (3). ProQuest 231014590. San Francisco's Cahan & Associates, a graphics design firm, is profiled. Cahan & Associates has won numerous design awards and consistently produces standout pieces.
Hall, Peter (1999). "Printed matter". ID: The International Design Magazine. 46 (6): 46. ProQuest 214751639. Bill Cahan has once again proven himself to be "the Steven Spielberg of annual reports" with the creation of Cahan & Associates extraordinary paperback-sized annual report for voice technology company General Magic.
McCarthy, Robert (1999). "Against the grain". Photo District News. 19 (4): 121–123. ProQuest 202872273. Bill Cahan, creative director and principal at Cahan and Associates in San Francisco, incorporates photojournalistic essays into commissioned brochures, catalogues and annual reports. His design firm has won numerous awards.
Heller, Steven (2000). "I Am Almost Always Hungry". Print. 53 (3). ProQuest 231024970. Heller reviews "I Am Almost Always Hungry" by Cahan & Associates
Kidd, Chip (2000). "I Am Almost Always Hungry". ID: The International Design Magazine. 47 (2): 112. ProQuest 214755886. Kidd reviews "I Am Almost Always Hungry" by Cahan & Associates

Jfire (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a review of recently located sources and the suggestion of turning this biography into a company article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 00:56, 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 redirect‎ to Vodacom#"Please Call Me". The content is retained in case editors want to reorient this article to be about the court case instead of being a BIO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nkosana Makate[edit]

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

Product of WP:BLP1E. Yes, the subject has been making the news in the past few months but this is all just 15 minutes of fame. WP:ATD, a redirect to Vodacom#"Please Call Me" would make sense. dxneo (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Technology, Africa, and South Africa. dxneo (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this case been in the news for years, not months. It has been extensively covered in WP:RS for that time. So the nomination description of it as “15 minutes of fame” is inaccurate. Makate may, or may not be notable in terms of WP:BLP1E but the case almost certainly is. Park3r (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Park3r, the case may be notable. However, I don't think Nkosana Makate is, the article is composed of this particular case only. Opening statement says "…is a South African who proposed the "Buzz" idea to Vodacom", no description nor WP:SIGCOV, and back to the nom, this is a clear BLP1E. Until relevant sources are brought to light, I think redirecting the article to Vodacom is the way to go. dxneo (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure I understand the deletion rationale here. The case is definitely notable and as much as Nkosana Makate may not be notable but he definitely deserves a mention in the case because after all he is the central figure to the case. Also, seeing that most articles on Wikipedia are about Europe and U.S and there is a serious lack of African content (including content on languages) I think it would have been wise for you Dineo to be bold fix the issues on this article and go on to translate it to your mother tongue than tag it for speedy deletion. Wikimedia ZA is there to support African Wikimedian like yourself to increase African content and languages on Wikipedia. Please reach out to me on bobby.shabangu@wikimedia.org.za to talk more on how we can support you. Bobbyshabangu _talk 18:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bobbyshabangu, yes he may be the central figure but this is pure WP:BLP1E (meaning he's known for one event only) which is the deletion rationale here. I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion if there was something I could do to improve it. Nkosana Makate is already mentioned on Vodacom#Please Call Me. Note that your comment does not support your "keep" !vote in any way. dxneo (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. As I read the "Keep" vote, the editor is rejecting the deletion nomination without arguing the specific points of it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vodacom#"Please Call Me". I find the nominator's argument that this is a WP:BLP1E situation convincing. Jfire (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 00:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vodacom as per nom, not enough here for a standalone page.-KH-1 (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as suggested above seems fine. One small paragraph covering the individual should be enough. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Makate v Vodacom or similar. The case meets WP:GNG, having generated extensive WP:SIGCOV over a sustained period in WP:RS and extensive legal commentary in journals, and made it to the Constitutional Court. Park3r (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vodacom#"Please Call Me" per nom. BLP1E, fails WP:SIRS, nothing found with SIGCVO addressing the subject directly and indepth that would indidicate this is anything other than a BLP1E. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 15:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hans-Freudenberg-Kolleg[edit]

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

It is one of many small associations in Germany that rent out living space to students. Neither the association nor its dormitory has any special significance that would justify an article; I couldn't find any independent sources that is not advertisement. Was deleted twice in German Wikipedia because of nonexistent notability. Killarnee (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Germany. Killarnee (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG/WP:CORP. Run-of-the-mill student housing association. Jfire (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 00:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, same as nom I can't find anything worth mentioning. Being deleted twice at dewiki for lack of notability, while certainly not justification to delete it here, makes me feel better that there aren't significant German sources we're missing. Bestagon ⬡ 00:53, 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. If some editor wants to work on a Draft version of this article, you can contact me or inquire at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore at the 2026 Asian Games[edit]

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. It's still too early for this article to exist. Created by the same user who created Vietnam at the 2026 Asian Games which I also nominated for deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Singapore. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. Frank Anchor 00:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Draft Traumnovelle (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Frank. S5A-0043^Talk 08:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck above after remembering the 6 month rule for draftspace. Delete. S5A-0043^Talk 14:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way WP:TOOSOON. In 6 months time, it will still be too soon, and so I object to draftifying this as draftspace is not an indefinite holding area. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly. It is very reasonable to have some level of information about a country's participation in international competition two years ahead of time. Therefore, drafspace would be the exact opposite of an indefinite holding area If this proves not to be the case, the draft can easily be deleted in October 2024. Frank Anchor 15:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For most events like this, the qualifying tournaments will be at most a year before the event i.e. in 2025. Unless there is evidence that there are 2026 Asian Games qualifiers this year, and so we'll know some qualified Singaporean competitors in 6 months time, then draftspace is not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly non-encyclopedic. The current entry contains nothing of value. The desire to create articles way ahead of time needs to be stamped out. It's an unhealthy "I was here first" culture which does not add value to Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per all above. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: I strongly oppose draftifying, since it will still be TOOSOON in 6 months time, as Joseph2302 states. Deletion is definitely preferrable. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, opinion divided between editors advocating Draftification and those arguing for Deletion. This might come down to No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I contend that "Draftify per TOOSOON" does not hold water in that it will still be too soon for 12–15 more months. There is nothing worth retaining in that the article contains no information other than a circular definition of the article title: "Singapore at the 2026 Asian Games means that Singapore will compete at the 2026 Asian Games". Geschichte (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per all above. Svartner (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 00:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, as a preferable WP:ATD. If there isn't information added to the article in 6 months time, it can easily and with little effort be deleted. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftifying would be completely pointless, since there isn't any valuable content to preserve. Better to delete now than later. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a case of WP:TOOSOON and this will also be the case in the near future, so no need for draftification. Let'srun (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete for Pete's sake. It's a one sentence article which will outdated if they do compete, and false if they don't. There is nothing here to save for a draft, unless you think it's too much trouble to recreate an infobox. It isn't. Mangoe (talk) 03:29, 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 redirect‎ to Ravi Kinagi#Odia film. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manini (1985 film)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. Nothing found to support notability DonaldD23 talk to me 00:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was unable to find any reliable sources, much less threshold needed to meet GNG. Cara Wellington (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Ravi_Kinagi#Odia_film. Page has poor unreliable sources. Not much can be found other than on imdb. RangersRus (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my !vote, but if to a list of films by year, it should be redirected to one of Odia films not Kannada. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I got mixed up with same name film from 1979 in Kannada. RangersRus (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ravi_Kinagi#Odia_film: it is listed there. The Routledge Handbook of Indian cinema gives 1986 as release year. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ravi Kinagi#Odia film: as per other comments. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:42, 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!} 23:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co'Motion Dance Theater[edit]

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

Little more than WP:ROUTINE, Iowa focused coverage, both in listed sources, and in search results. Fails WP:ORGCRIT given insufficient WP:AUD. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sign of sufficient notability and, given the dead state of the webpage link, unlikely to generate further notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Theatre, Companies, and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable people connected with the company. No notable premieres or collaborations with notable composers. Very WP:MILL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn`t meet GNG, need more reliable sources--Improvised but so real unicorn (talk) 10:16, 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.