Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 26	April 28 >

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. I find Timothy's rationale the most persuasive, and there's just about enough support for deletion here. If anyone wants this draftified to work on it immediately, please let me know and I will facilitate. Daniel (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Jobe[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:49, 13 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) 19:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - professional footballer who played at the elite level, multiple sources to prove that fact.Fleets (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of IRS SIGCOV, which is required to be cited in the article for all sportspeople. JoelleJay (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided (leaning keep/move to draft): Young Catalans player and will likely have more coverage later in his career. Should be expanded, but currently not sufficient coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that there is not sufficient coverage? JTtheOG (talk) 22:14, 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!} 23:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found routine mill news, name mentions, listings, nothing with SIGCOV from independent reliable sources. BLPs require strong sourcing. Sources in article are a database record and a name mention in routine game news. Ping me if indepth SIGCOV is found. // Timothy :: talk 09:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muscovite–Ukrainian War (1658–1659)[edit]

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

No such war in literature, it was part of the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667). This article is OR Marcelus (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems to be mentioned here but the odds are this is not reliable and copied from Wikipedia. Possibly mentioned under other names in English, Polish, Ukrainian, Russian. Polish name is not mentioned, can anyone report on the queries in Russian and Ukrainian and analyze sources used in the respective articles on ru and uk wikis, if any (sources; articles exist)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable. Sources exist e.g. this and this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly re-title. We have an article on The Ruin (Ukrainian history). This would be a sub-article. I do personally find the use of "Muscovy" and "Ukraine" in this context a tad jarring. We seem to be very inconsistent in our terminology for early modern East Slavic states. There is an open access anthology on the battle of Konotop (1659) wherein Serhii Plokhy uses "Muscovite-Cossack war". Srnec (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google Scholar returns 2 results for "Muscovite-Ukrainian War" and 9 results for "Ukrainian-Muscovite War", of which only 1 refers to 1658. Clearly a new title is needed in this case and this seems to fall under the Ruin and Russo-Polish War articles (which are sorely lacking details for this period). Even the Ukrainian-language sources cited use "Russian-Ukrainian war" and this looks like to have been the original title on the Ukrainian Wikipedia before it was moved. In my opinion this looks like revisionist history referring to an uprising led by Ivan Vyhovsky (a pro-Polish hetman). For example this source says: "Khmel'nitskii died in 1657, and Poland and the new Cossack leader, Vygovskii, now accepted Polish lordship over Ukraine. Vygovskii joined Poland in the resumption of war with Russia in October 1658... But in Ukraine, Cossacks of the Left Bank... rebelled against Vygovskii's pro-Polish alliance... Vygovskii fled to Poland, and Trubetskoi marched to Pereiaslavl', where he persuaded the Left Bank Cossacks to accept him as hetman in October 1659" (p. 214). I do not think it is suited for a spin-off article; I would say merge instead but most the article is unsourced. Mellk (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell: in 1658 Vyhovsky again recognized the Cossacks' dependence on Poland; the Union of Hadziach was signed. This resumed Polish-Russian fighting interrupted earlier by a truce; Russia invaded Ukraine seeking to subjugate Vyhovsky, having some Cossacks (including Sich) behind it.

In May, the PLC again concluded a truce with Russia, but the Sejm approved the Hadziach Union, and Vyhovsky received small reinforcements from the crown army. Thus came the Battle of Konotop, which Vyhovsky won. In August, however, a Cossack uprising broke out against Vyhovsky, who was overthrown and the new Hetman Yurko Khmelnytsky subordinated himself to Moscow, supported by a large part of the Cossacks. The war continued.

As you can see, there is no war between “Ukraine” and “Moscow”, but there is an internal rivalry between the divided Cossacks, which take place in the context of the Polish-Russian war. Marcelus (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that Google Scholar returns almost no results for "Russian-Ukrainian war" or "Russo-Ukrainian war" referring to 1658/1659 (if we limit the years to before the current war then almost all results refer to the Russian Civil War and a hypothetical war excluding post-2014 publications referring to the current war but slipped through). Same goes for "Muscovite-Cossack war" etc. I see a few results for Ukrainian-language sources but there needs to be a deeper look to see which ones are reliable. At the moment I see very little that supports the idea of a separate war. For example there are plenty of Ukrainian-language sources that refer to a Soviet occupation of Ukraine until 1991 but this was determined to be a fringe view. In fact we had an AfD for this (and this was also a translation of an article from the Ukrainian Wikipedia). Mellk (talk) 15:43, 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!} 23:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Salvage what is possible from the article and merge it into the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667) page. Noorullah (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nom, no such war happened, this is simply re-branding events in the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667) to get the name "Ukraine" in an title. The closest anything comes to this would be something like "Muscovite-Cossack skirmishes during the Russo-Polish War)", and I don't see SIGCOV from RS that would make this anything but an unneeded CFORK. The article itself is largely unsourced original research, I don't see anything here that would improve the a merge target. // Timothy :: talk 09:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: largely unsourced original research, and it's dubious if this subject even exists. Sources in the article are not convincing; same for the sources offered in this AfD. For example, this source [1] includes this strange passage: ...Russian historiography officially treats this event as the “Reunification of Ukraine with Russia”, although there was no Russia at that time, and the entire world called only Ukrainians Russians, or Russian people. But no one had a question, which land is called Rus', because again the whole world knew that Rus' is Ukraine." And so on. I don't see anything worth merging that's not already covered in the main article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and my previous comments. There is very little that supports the idea of a separate war and there is not much to salvage from the article as it currently is. Mellk (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The one keep !vote was a statement that has been, to my opinion, adequately rebutted referencing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Daniel (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adeseha Wuraola Becky[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. She has not starred in a single notable film; a Google search of her doesn't show her being discussed in reliable secondary sources. Most of the sources cited in the article are primary sources that involve the subject granting interviews to several publications. The article was previously deleted via an afd discussion, which can be seen here. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as the previous deletion. My mind is why there seems always to be a minimal participation for consensus reach. However, an article created barely two /four days after deletion. What am I suspecting? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Versace1608, isn't this G4 you could have tagged. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Safari Scribe, I wasn't aware that the article was previously deleted. I only learned this info after nominating it. Sometimes if an article is different from the one that was previously deleted, the admin handling the speedy deletion will decline the G4 request. I have experienced this in the past. Anyways, thanks for the message. Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions to this site. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't G4 on a prod/soft delete. Desertarun (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The refs check out. She doesn't pass Nactor, nor does she need to because she passes both Basic and GNG. Desertarun (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact there is that there isn't much verifiable source(s) to verify whether she acted those films or not, that's part of WP:NBASIC. For the refs, there are WP:ROUTINE like made from interviews, etc and points towards WP:MILL—not notable for now! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Same as last AfD, nothing has changed, nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Sources in article are promo or mentions, nothing meeting WP:SIRS. Article looks like a promo bio to me. // Timothy :: talk 09:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Netherlands[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all of the sources are primary sources, are nothing but announcements and does not assert notability. @BrigadierG: per suggestion by admin. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A jumble of sports contracts, not encylcopedic. Desertarun (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This does not meet the criteria established by WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HTML-Kit[edit]

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

Doesn't have enough coverage in WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV needed to meet notability guidelines. There's some brief coverage in books but nothing significant other than "it's an HTML editor you can use," and nothing else I could find that seemed reliable. Survived an AfD in 2005 solely on the basis of being "well-known." StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The prior AfD (which was long enough ago that it was actually a VfD) is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTML Kit; the article was renamed a few months after that nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Because of prior deletion discussion, a Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Usual software fluffery. Unreferenced since 2005. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG, unsourced, nothing found that meets WP:SIRS. // Timothy :: talk 10:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in South Korea[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. The only source are simply announcment, just not worthy of an encyclopaedic value. Those arguing for a keep must be advised of WP:USEFUL. I also advise those to create a Fandom page for your favorite sport if you want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and South Korea. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A jumble of sports contracts, not encylopedic or maintainable. Desertarun (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chenab[edit]

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

Another page littered with unreliable sources. Hari Ram Gupta doesn't even say he was defeated at all (which the page misleads you by citing it did), removed if you check now on my newest revision. Noorullah (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Ram Gupta being the only reliable source on the page shows that the Afghans had instead routed and pursued the Sikhs. [2] Noorullah (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also had to remove numerous unreliable sources, including one of them being a near copy paste. [3] Noorullah (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Pakistan, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely notable and fails GNG. There are several similar articles cited with religious texts with authors having no historical background--Imperial ^[AFCND] 06:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and above. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chamkaur (1764)[edit]

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

Extremely unreliable sources including over-reliance on primary sources that still fall under WP:RAJ such as Panth Prakash, also extremely exaggerated in numbers (1 million?) Noorullah (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Over the past year, these topic areas have been inundated with poorly written and sourced articles that paid no heed to neutrality, proper sourcing, or historical accuracy, but rather on aggrandizing their religion as much as possible. Tactics included an over reliance on primary sources and ref spamming Google books snippets or sources which only made negligible mention of topic at hand. This article is one of the many, many examples. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing but another article that is backed by religious texts, that too falls under WP: AGEMATTERS. Not found any RS calling this by the Name "Battle of Chamkaur"--Imperial ^[AFCND] 06:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Jassa_Singh_Ahluwalia#Military_campaigns. Raj era source is if it's written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. The page is attributed from one source and it does not attest if it was a battle. Not every minor encounter, fight or confrontation needs to have a page on it. RangersRus (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete falls under WP:RAJ, WP:AGEMATTERS, maybe also WP:GNG. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 European Federation to preserve the history as per the rationale presented and agreed to during the discussion. Daniel (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States of Europe[edit]

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

Disambiguation page with a clear primary topic and one other recently created and comparatively niche topic. I propose to delete this page, redirect the title to European Federation, which covers this concept, and add a hatnote there. BD2412 T 23:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 23:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The political entity on this dab is not much more than political aedvertising. No elections, no seats. For the rest: as by the nominator. The Banner talk 00:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note User:BD2412, since earlier history was merged to what is presently titled European Federation, much of the history is ineligible for deletion per WP:MAD. The page may still be redirected, and WP:AFD remains a correct venue for such a discussion per WP:ATD-R. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:10EB:6979:4B48:D793 (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The history itself can always be moved under a different title. BD2412 T 16:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  User:BD2412 sure, but that seems to be needless extra work since the result is that instead of simply targeting A from B you first move B to some other title C before targeting A with both, what's the point? 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E493:D84:28E3:D006 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see what you're saying. I have no problem with this being maintained as a redirect to European Federation with the current history intact; it should not exist as a disambiguation page. BD2412 T 17:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I agree, and that's fine WP:AFD is explicitly a correct venue to establish consensus for a WP:BLAR, just wanted to make sure we stayed within policy. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E493:D84:28E3:D006 (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to make the above clear following the relist since I never explicitly bolded anything, I support redirecting to European Federation as the primary topic at present with any necessary disambiguation being accomplished with hatnoting. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:49B:2883:34FC:225B (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion, unless "European Federation" (rather an awkward name, especially the capitalised "F") is moved to "United State of Europe". --Checco (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not the standard required by WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. BD2412 T 20:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to European Federation as per nom. Samoht27 (talk) 20:04, 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!} 22:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven James Bartlett[edit]

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

fails WP:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR, appears to be a vanity page Psychastes (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Psychology. Psychastes (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, France, Germany, Mexico, California, Connecticut, Florida, Missouri, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
how so? Psychastes (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However BLP is bloated and needs pruning to 20% of current. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Weak delete unless someone provides more RSes - the existence of Steven Bartlett (businessman) makes searching for sources quite annoying, but I managed to find a few. Here is an extended discussion of his book The Pathology of Man: A Study of Human Evil but I'm not sure about the journal or if the reviewer is an independent source. Other sources I found are briefer mentions, e.g. [4][5], or I don't have access (also unsure about the journal here) [6]. Shapeyness (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- slightly over the notability level for WP:AUTHOR and right at the edge for WP:PROF, based on citations, appointments, and reviews. I actually disagree with Xxanthippe though on the pruning part. If the subject is notable then the information there is the type of thing someone looking up information about the subject (biography, etc.) would like to know. But that's for post AfD discussion. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Author and passes WP:Prof, meets criteria 1,2. Like [7] respectfully disagree with Xxanthippe re the pruning part since biographers find this category of information important.

Additional references that refer to Bartlett’s published work, accessed today:

Martin, B. (2020). "Tactics against scheming diseases." Journal of Sociotechnical Critique, 1(1), 1–20. https://social-epistemology.com/2019/01/31/technology-and-evil-brian-martin/
Martin, Brian. "Evil institutions: Steven Bartlett’s analysis of human evil and its relevance for anarchist alternatives," Anarchist Studies, vol. 29, no. 1, 2021, pp. 88-110. [8]
Meissner, W. W. "The Pathology of Man: A Study of Human Evil. By Steven James Bartlett." Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, Vol. 71, No. 3 (Summer 2007), 267-268. [9]. Review begins with "The subject matter of this treatise is far-reaching and profound" and ends with the conclusion: "Psychologists and psychotherapists will find this a challenging and thought provoking approach that makes a significant contribution."
Suarez, Alejandra Review of two books by Bartlett: "The worst devils of our nature." PsychCritiques, June 13, 2012, Vol. 57, Release 23, Article 2. [10]. "Because the books present such an unusual stance that can provoke thoughtful consideration of the accepted truths in psychology, I highly recommend them."
Martin, Brian. "Technology and Evil." Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 8, no. 2 (2019): 1-14. [11]
Martin, Brian. "What if most people love violence?" Waging Nonviolence, 3 May 2019. [12]
Martin, Brian. "Whistleblowers versus evil." The Whistle, No. 96, October 2018, pp. 4-5. [13]
West, Marcus. Book review: "Bartlett, Steven James, The Pathology of Man." The Journal of Analytical Psychology, Volume 51, No. 3, June, 2006, pp. 486-7. [14]. Review ends with the conclusion "This is certainly a classic work of reference in the field."
Martin, Brian. "When to Read a Heavy Tome." Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 11 (8), 2022: pp. 84-89. [15]
Critique of Impure Reason by Steven James Bartlett cited in Ruffing, Margit. "Kant-Bibliographie 2020," Kant-Studien, vol. 113, no. 4, 2022, pp. 725-760. [16]
García, Luis Felipe. "Introducción a Crítica De La Razón Impura: Horizontes De Posibilidad Y Sentido. Revista De Investigación Filosófica Y Teoría Social, Dialectika, 2021, 3 (7): pp. 63-70. Translation into Spanish of Bartlett’s book Critique of Impure Reason.[17].
O’Kane, Aisling Ann; Park, Sun Young; Mentis, Helena; Blandford, Ann and Chen, Yunan. "Turning to Peers: Integrating Understanding of the Self, the Condition, and Others’ Experiences in Making Sense of Complex Chronic Conditions." Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 25, 2016, pp. 477–501. DOI 10.1007/s10606-016-9260-y. Discusses and cites Bartlett’s book, Normality Does Not Equal Mental Health. [18]
Martin, Brian. "Research Grants and Agenda Shaping Research Grants and Agenda Shaping." In Allen, David M. and Howell, James W. (eds.), Groupthink in Science: Greed, Pathological Altruism, Ideology, Competition, and Culture (Springer, 2020), pp. 77-83. [19]

Toh59 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peatfold Burn[edit]

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

It's rare a google search returns no results, but here we are. Given this, and the fact this is merely a geographic formation, this fails WP:NPLACE by a long shot. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A look at the reference given shows that the correct name of this feature is Burn of Peatfold. Using that produces a few hits, though I would tend to doubt its notability nonetheless, as for comparison we have deleted articles on German bachs of which we could only determine that they existed. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete searches for either term get few Google hits and many of the results seems to be for things around the burn rather than the burn its self. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KUDA (Shoshoni, Wyoming)[edit]

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

Defunct small-town station with no secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Redirect is unnecessary as the disambiguator of (Shoshoni, Wyoming) makes it an implausibly specific search term. AusLondonder (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Wyoming. AusLondonder (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one I'm okay with. I checked for sources (like you're supposed to), and couldn't locate anything notable. Plus, the station signed back on as KUDA on a different frequency. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 22:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did check for sources, as you're supposed to do when creating an article, and found absolutely nothing. AusLondonder (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hence I'm fine with it. All I ask is due diligence before pushing the AfD button. I would appreciate a template first, so that the article can be improved. If no sources can be found, so be it, it can be deleted. I just hope there isn't a vendetta here. I've put in many hours trying to beef up sources in radio station articles, and I'm just hoping they don't go to waste for nefarious reasons. As I've said many times before, I don't own these articles, but I will defend any licensed broadcast station where legitimate third-party sources can be found. See KCUW-LP and KBGN for examples. A lot of work went into those. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 22:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not have the sourcing to meet the WP:GNG. Implausible search term for a redirect. Let'srun (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An obvious remnant article of the looser inclusion "standards" that this topic area had prior to 2021, which were largely based more on existence (which neither proves nor is notability) than on sourcing, much less the clearly-lacking-here significant coverage. The disambiguator makes any redirect impractical, particularly when there isn't much reason to retain the article history anyway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in Wyoming as WP:ATD. Why would KUDA be an unlikely search term? Also there are 57 incoming links. I assume most of these are from templates, but who's going to check for real ones. Wouldn't it be WP:CHEAPER to redirect? ~Kvng (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources on the article and no hits online, FCC source is not great for demonstrating notability. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is the article poorly sourced, the subject itself lack sources. It clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Chailey Heritage School#Searchlight Workshops. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searchlight (workshops)[edit]

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

Have moved all the important content to Chailey Heritage School and would WP:BLAR but I feel that would leave an overly broad redirect, so I'm proposing a delete here. Fails WP:GNG and we can cover anything that does on Chailey Heritage School in the Searchlight Workshops section. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chailey Heritage School#Searchlight Workshops: As creating editor I had hopes that others would enhance this article. I feel it merits targeted WP:BLAR rather than deletion. This then leaves a good entry point for readers. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't addressed my main claim here, a redirect may be overly broad. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Allan Nonymous Perhaps you have a misunderstanding of the ability to redirect to a section im another article. Doing this addresses that concern absolutely. There is nothing broad about a rifle targeted redirection. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify here, I wasn't saying the redirect target was too broad. I was saying the redirect term (i.e. "Searchlight (Workshops)") might be a bit too broad per the many things called searchlight. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Allan Nonymous That is the name of the thing. Thus, broad or not, that is what it is called. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To aid this decision, I have migrated small but important additional material to the proposed target article and section, including references which were omitted, sourced and referenced the charity number (etc) for Searchlight Workshops, and noted the charity's cessation in 2011. One reference remains primary, but I believe it to be permitted under WP:PRIMARY. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chailey Heritage School#Searchlight Workshops per above. // Timothy :: talk 12:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ nomination withdrawn as the article has been salvaged with better sourcing to properly establish notability. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel M. Thomas[edit]

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

Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claim here is that he served on a county board of supervisors, which is not an "inherently" notable role -- it's a local office that has to satisfy NPOL #2, where the notability test is contingent on the amount of substance that can be written about his political impact, and the amount of sourcing that can be shown to support it. But this is literally just "he is a person who existed, the end", and is completely unsourced. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would suspect that the second Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is more historically significant as a body than many later iterations of the same, and wonder if perhaps sources can be found for this subject. I immediately wonder if he is the same person as the Daniel M. Thomas who was elected as the first County Judge of San Bernardino County. BD2412 T 22:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is the same person. He was a Mormon political activist who advocated for San Bernardino County to be split off from Los Angeles County. Cullen328 (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. See also the county record. I would lean to keep on the strength of these points. BD2412 T 22:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's a lot better. Consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electrolux Laundry Systems[edit]

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

Article has absolutely no references to support it, has been tagged for many years to that effect, has not had anything substantial added to it for several years, and is not particularly informative. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 4 gnews hits one of which is primary. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wretha Hanson[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claim here is that she was an alternate vice-presidential candidate in one state for a minor fringe party's presidential campaign, which is not an automatic notability freebie -- it could get her an article if she were shown to actually pass WP:GNG for it, but it is in no way "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from GNG. But there are just three improperly-formatted footnotes here, all of which are to primary or unreliable sources that are not support for notability at all, so she hasn't been shown to satisfy GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 23:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have independent sources.Rustypenguin (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Noori. Daniel (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kami Paul[edit]

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

Fails to meet relevant WP:MUSICBIO as well general WP:GNG. I would suggest first delete and then redirect to Noori. This BLP was created by a user who might have a COI.—Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Noori: not enough individual notability to warrant an individual article. InDimensional (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect: Scrapes through on notability but also repeats the same facts over and over Sansbarry (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant[edit]

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

Non notable topic, not an encyclopedia article but a hagiography. Nationalistic drivel; a national myth presented as if it is factual. There are and have been many people who are or were good with horses. Reading this article as someone who was not born in the USA is just weird. Polygnotus (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is just the standard story people use to make heads of states seem cool, more a metaphor for their leadership of their country than a thing that they pretend actually happened. Famously, Alexander the Great tamed Bucephalus and George Washington tamed a colt. All so-called untameable horses that were tamed by a horsewhisperer with near-magical powers. Polygnotus (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“

I appreciate the fact, and am proud of it, that the attentions I am receiving are intended more for our country than for me personally.

”

— Ulysses S. Grant

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Military, Politics, United States of America, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, the content tone is atrocious in places and looks more like a student essay/WP:SYNTH that looked for references that just merely mentioned horses and Grant. That doesn't matter as much for AfD, but in looking through those sources and content, there really isn't a case made for notability at all. This source just by title is the closest there may be at trying to even hint at WP:N despite the superlatives, but that seems like an isolated case and more of a WP:INHERIT issue tied to Grant's notability that would get an occasional book like that. If there is anything to mention about the subject, it can be handled at the BLP, but I don't see this being a likely search term needing a redirect/merge either. KoA (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source you mentioned, by Dowdall, is self-published. That is, it was published by HistoryEye, and looking up HistoryEye on the Web [20], we find that it is "managed by Dublin-based genealogist, Denise Dowdall." According to WP:SELFPUBLISH, if material in a self-published source is worth citing, one is expected to find the same material in a more reliable source and cite it from there instead. This goes for all 11 of the citations of Dowdall in the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is an artifact of poor quality coverage of a supposed arrest of Grant for speeding in his carriage that got a flurry of attention as a side story to Donald Trump's criminal charges. Not a notable topic. Cullen328 (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, we have to wonder if this nomination to delete presents its own anti-nationalist bias. Given the wording, i.e."myth", "hagiography", "nationalistic drivel", this seems to be the case.
The article is sourced by multiple reliable sources used in the Grant (featured) article itself, and in other articles about Civil War. It may come off as a "hagiography", to some, simply because Grant was much more than "good with horses", but because he was markedly exceptional, beginning in his youth, often considered a prodigy, and there are several reliable sources to support that. As a cadet Grant set a hig jump record at West Point that stood for more than 25 years, that is also not a "myth". His experience with horses involved him with Lincoln, not to mention in exceptional feats during the Civil War, all reliably sourced. Because he was a renown horseman, he received them as gifts, while in the Civil War, and in retirement on his world tour from the Egyptian government and from the Sultan Abdul Hamid II.
It is by no means a passing coincidence that a memorial to Grant is a statue of him on a horse, or that a mural inside the dome of Grant's Tomb is of Grant on horseback. It is understood that this topic, like many that involve US history, may not appeal to everyone, but it certainly is so by people intereseted in Grant, and the Civil War, and there are many, and it ties in with Civil War history, and Grant's overall biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This anti-nationalist (aka pro-factual) bias is the same bias that would make me remove claims that Kim Jong-Il made 11 holes-in-one at his very first round of golf. The examples given in the article are not proof of exceptional skill, they are clearly made up stories to make him look cool. There is no way Ulysses had the most exceptional horsemanship in American history, and there are no sources for that claim (as noted on the talkpage). Polygnotus (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every recent biography of Grant devotes space to his horsemanship. The tone of the article may need some work, but trying to dismiss the topic as "nationalistic drivel" misses the mark entirely, as does attempting to link it to Trump. Intothat darkness 23:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have time this evening to follow up by examining your citations, but will try to get to that later. AfD discussions often turn on the quality of the sources. If sufficiently many reliable, secondary sources give significant or in-depth coverage to the topic, not just passing mentions, then the topic is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. That's the one-sentence summary; what "sufficiently many" and "significant or in-depth" actually mean in this case perhaps can be answered only by looking at the sources.

"Reliable secondary" sources include the likes of Catton, McFeely, Smith, White, Chernow. You should specifically be circumspect about the use of sources such as Brisbin, Fuller, Headley, Grant's son, and other contemporaries. The quoted passage from Brisbin in the "Military" section is evidently hagiographic, and even just including it in the article betrays a generally hagiographic approach.

The question is not about the horsemanship; it's about the coverage of the horsemanship. Through an assortment of anecdotes passed down through the years, we can be fairly sure that Grant was an accomplished horseman. But how much attention do the serious modern biographies or the modern Civil War historians give to this topic? The answer to that is what determines whether or not this topic warrants an article of its own. And if it does, the sources for that article had better be good ones, and they had better be enthusiastic about the topic. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both Smith and White mention Grant's horsemanship over twenty times in their biographies, often at length and at various points during his life. I'd certainly say it's not a trivial subject. Intothat darkness 17:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources exist so has significant coverage in reliable sources. Article quality (whether it is hagiographic or not) is completely irrelevant at AfD. Summary style says that notable sections of articles can always be spun off into child articles. Deletion claims under vague assertions of What Wikipedia is not ie I just don't like it are always suspect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep U.S. Grant's horsemanship is indeed quite notable, established by ample sources. I also agree that the nomination to delete this page is flawed by sheer, blind bias. TH1980 (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an American equestrian, I strongly dispute this interpretation and reading of the article, and vote to Keep the article as a result. The horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant is particularly notable, especially among U.S. Presidents, and appears to be written and intended for primarily an American audience. However, even many Americans are unaware of Grant's exceptional equestrian skills, which have also been noted by several historians. Additionally, "according to Wikipedia policy, editors should only nominate an article for...deletion under limited circumstances, such as pure vandalism, and not mark legitimate pages without good faith discussion". (See: Deletion of articles on Wikipedia.) I also strongly dispute the assertation that the article is "nationalistic drivel; a national myth presented as if it is factual", as the topic has been covered by both biographers of Grant, as well as other professional historians. Obversa (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ As noted by User:Intothatdarkness, both biographers and many professional historians have covered the "Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant" as a notable topic. While the article may need to be overhauled, the topic is notable in of itself to warrant its own Wikipedia article. I would also note that the Wikipedia article for Cincinnati, Ulysses S. Grant's primary Thoroughbred mount and favorite horse during the American Civil War, also ridden by Abraham Lincoln, was already merged into Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant some time ago. Deleting the page would be a disservice to not only the topic itself, but also the decision to merge the two articles. I also agree with User: Gwillhickers in questioning whether this suggested page deletion is in good faith or not, as Wikipedia policy dictates. Obversa (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Obversa: So you are admitting that you refuse to follow WP:AGF? So you are saying that, just because we disagree, I must be of bad faith? Polygnotus (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This reply comes across as aggressive and uncivil, as well as your comments on my User talk page. Please do not comment on my User talk page, and keep discussion civil, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thank you. See: Wikipedia:How to be civil or Wikipedia:Civility. I stand by what I said in my original reply, and still vote to Keep the page based on my previous reasoning. Obversa (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well sourced and easily meets GNG, and per discussion and the historical fact that Grant was both known for his horsemanship and his horses. Besides, if he were alive today, and faced with the politics of 21st century America, he'd be a jockey. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article needs a rewrite but the sources exist and don't appear, at a surface level review, to be synth. We don't delete for bad writing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polygnotus — The fact that you automatically equate anti-nationalist bias with facts only serves to demonstrate, further, the lack of objectivity with which you assessed this article. Grant's horsemanship is largely a positive affair, and simply because there isn't coverage of his failures or short comings with horses and horsemanship is for the simple reason that there are no such episodes. His horse did lose its footing once, fell over, and landed on Grant's leg, but that was not Grant's fault entirely, if at all. — I once had a history professor claim, that history is mostly "written by the winners of wars", to which I commented, "what would history read like if it was only written by losers". In any case, much of history is written objectively, and again, simply because an account of a particular chapter seems positive, it doesn't automatically mean it's less than factual or over stated..-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To everyone else. Thank you for your support. I am perfectly willing to improve on any sentence(s) or paragraph(s) that may need it, and am perfectly open to fair suggestions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:INDENT. Ad hominems and straw man arguments make your argument weaker, not mine. What would history read like if it was written by the horses? Polygnotus (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy was point on, given your assessment. The only straw man around here was the one you stood up in front of this article.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough indents! Polygnotus (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

giddyup? Randy Kryn (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've mislaid my copy, but as additional source British military historian John Keegan discusses Grant's horsemanship in some detail in his 1987 book The Mask of Command ISBN 0-7126-6526-9 and compares it to that of the Duke of Wellington, another noted equestrian. Narky Blert (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

"Reading this article as someone who was not born in the USA is just weird" - Okay? We don't delete articles for being weird to readers born outside the US, as far as I know. This AfD reads as reflexive anti-nationalism. That isnt a bad impulse, but I believe it is misplaced here.

I don't personally care for his horsemanship, but I've read enough biographies of Grant to know that it's important to every biographer of this massive figure in American history. Calling it nationalistic drivel unworthy of an article by comparing it to horses - horses that have articles of their own (you linked Alexander's horse, and here's Washington's horse)- seems to negate your point. Myth or no, it is a notable subject covered by reliable secondary sources. Comparing it to North Korean leaders' alleged golf prowess is also off-base - because Grant was actually good at riding horses.

I can't find good cause to delete this article. Though I agree the article certainly needs clean up. Happy to contribute to a clean up. Carlp941 (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We must bear in mind that a "nationalist" is someone who loves and is loyal to one's own country. This doesn't mean that there is a dislike for other countries. Calling someone a "nationalist", by using terms like "nationalist drivel", "myths", etc, reveals a hatred or contempt for a given country, and in that case this is not good. Now we have the same apparent tendency behind the complaint just made on the Grant Talk page, here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (having already !voted). This discussion reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George H. W. Bush broccoli comments, a 2020 nomination which the community found to be ill-judged. Narky Blert (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The writing isn't great, but the subject is notable -- which is what matters here. Grant's horsemanship is no mere myth, it's something his scholarly biographers all mention. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Refocus, Rewrite: The information is worthy of being an article. I would focus on Grant's use of the Union Calvary during the Civil War. Confederate Calvary under Van Dorn (Holly Springs) and Forrest, may have influenced Grant to use Union Calvary under Sheridan. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't have anything to do with Grant's use of cavalry. It's focused on his horsemanship, which isn't the same thing. Intothat darkness 13:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalry has to do with soildiers on horses. Grant was a soildier and a General. He convinced Lincoln to appoint Sheridan, head of the Army of the Potomac Cavalry. After Forrest and Van Dorn attacked Grant in Mississippi, Grant learned the importance of having a strong cavalry. I respect your opinion. I understand what you are saying. Your point is taken. This was just a suggestion. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying and respect your opinion as well (although Grant's larger fight was to get Sheridan appointed to command in the Shenandoah Valley, and Sherman was the one who developed an obsession with Forrest). But we already have some serious feuding going on the article's talk page. Trying to add cavalry in would in my view just make things worse. And for the record, Grant didn't champion cavalry in any major way after the war, nor do historians write much about his overall use of cavalry being visionary or exceptional. He understood cavalry, including its limitations, and was very good at using it in the wider strategic sense...as he was with all his forces. Intothat darkness 23:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Five Forks was a Union victory in April, 1865. Sheridan led the Union Cavalry. Grant's most humiliating defeat was at Holly Springs in 1862, when Confederate General Van Dorn and his Conferderate Cavalry sacked Holly Springs, Grant's Union supply depot. Grant believed cavalry should be under stong leadership. That is all I am saying. Aside from this, I am for keeping the article, but trimmed down and rewritten. I hope this issue can be resolved in the near future. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say at this point the article is clearly a Keep. But the campaign has now moved to the article talk page. Intothat darkness 14:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Evans[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, United Kingdom, and Wales. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . I am also not seeing much coverage on this person.Hkkingg (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations can be incorporated into the articles on the towns where relevant, but not sufficient external notice for PROF or Author. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This author has been published by a rather niche publishing house: in major bibliographic databases, like Open Library, and Worldcat, the total number of titles hovers around 100. That in itself is not a problem but I cannot find reviews of the books nor articles about the author other than this one: Carmarthen Journal (Carmarthen, Wales). 2024. “Porthyrhyd & Llanddarog Pensioners Society,” March 20. https://research-ebsco-com.ezproxy.sfpl.org/linkprocessor/plink?id=65b6eed4-eede-3b99-b276-4e4d8558e31c, which apparently (I don't have access to it) reports on a meeting where Evans was present. Unfortunately, the article was created by an editor named "Roy Duke Evans" so I assume a COI. If there are good sources of information in Welsh publications we would need someone with access to those. So far we have nothing about her. Lamona (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Kochlamazashvili[edit]

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

Poorly sourced footballer BLP that fails WP:GNG. All that comes up are trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Georgia (country). JTtheOG (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Soares[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Ineligible for PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Amature player with minimal coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Bardle[edit]

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP; subject made one pro appearance. All I really found was this transactional announcement. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One app doesn't make you notable for a stand alone article. Mn1548 (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non. Non-notable. Contributor892z (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ on a particular target which is understandably unsatisfying, but with multiple potential targets and no indication a consensus is going to solidify around one, there is no action for a closer here. There is a consensus that these should be covered within the scope of the 2022 games or that of their country's participation in the games. That discussion can be continued editorially without concern that this AfD precludes that. Star Mississippi 14:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominica at the 2002 Commonwealth Games[edit]

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

Previously subject of a contested PROD. No secondary sources. Zero useful content. Previous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominica at the 2010 Commonwealth Games was that these articles are not useful, particularly if they lack substantive content.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

AusLondonder (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Caribbean. AusLondonder (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to 2002 Commonwealth Games. Athletes need to win a medal for their participation in an event to become notable - seems most reasonable to apply that to countries as well. BrigadierG (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with making that a blanket rule, but many of these countries that send a small number of participants won't generate coverage to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for notifying me. As I'm not sure what they could be replaced with if deleted, I would favour completing those articles rather than deleting them (and subsequently re-creating them with proper content). Either that, or put into Dominica at the Commonwealth Games (etc) the content that they should have, and turn them into a redirect. Aridd (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AusLondonder, did you add these additional articles to this nomination or did someone else? Whomever did it, please move this list of articles to the top of the AFD, above any comments, so that XFDcloser will see them as being part of this AFD nomination. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Thanks, will do. They were towards the top before, appears someone accidentally commented above them. AusLondonder (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AusLondonder, nicely done. Thank you. XFDcloser can be a little fussy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to "X at the Commonwealth Games" (where X is country name). Not enough coverage for separate articles, but they look to have 2002 mentioned in their parent articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all with prejudice to Anguilla at the Commonwealth Games, Antigua and Barbuda at the Commonwealth Games etc. XX at XX CG are often barebones article, almost templates, with no hope whatsoever for expansion to actual articles. The sensible solution is to merge on sight with the appropriate country pages. Geschichte (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure a redirect is necessary. The Montserrat page, for example, was averaging views in the single digits per month, not even statistically significant. Most internal links are via templates such as Template:Associations at the 2002 Commonwealth Games. I also don't particularly see how a redirect here fulfils the criteria at WP:RPURPOSE. Also taking a look at the template Associations at the 2002 Commonwealth Games about half the template are redlinks. Finally, the redirects are not plausible search terms. AusLondonder (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or merge and which is the preferred target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a native of the island mentioned in this AFD discussion title (obvious disclosure), merge and source into Dominica at the Commonwealth Games (as an example). (If possible--for completion's sake--we may as well actually mention the names of the six athletes who participated back then.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging just 2002 to the parent articles when no other years, even more successful years, are mentioned, doesn't seem like appropriate balance. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to 2002 Commonwealth Games. Little chance any coverage exists to satisfy GNG individually. JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Vermeulen[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Amature player with minimal coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shreyas Puranik[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, appears not notable. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and India. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of the article i would like to suggest keep, as it passes WP:MUSIC. The musical artist have received full fledged coverage from independent media sources for his work such as [21], [22], [23].[24]. Further the artist also passes one of the criteria of winning or being nominated for a notable award, as he won the notable Filmfare R. D. Burman Award in the category of upcoming music talent.[25][26]

Hineyo (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above references are either paid placement or Press Releases. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Note - This account (Hineyo) is blocked. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were blocked for 24 hours. That doesn't invalidate their opinion on that basis alone. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pass WP:MUSIC, Also, there are significant reliable sources availabe which talks about the subject. Grabup (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He has won awards which indicate notability and the articles references indicate sufficient coverage InDimensional (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please share best three references ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakhtar40 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Martin Ski Dome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, Washington[edit]

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

At a glance, this looks like a well-written and -sourced article, but it's a total WP:COATRACK. Almost nothing in the article is about the "town" of Martin, because there isn't anything to say: It was a minor railroad maintenance point that later had a station for a nearby ski area. Of all the cited sources, only reference 14 comes close to substantial coverage; many sources don't mention Martin at all. I couldn't find any additional sources that aren't already cited, and none are more than trivial mentions (e.g. photos of trains taken at Martin). I suggest a delete; I could also live with a merge of relevant content to Stampede Pass, Northern Pacific Railroad, or Meany Lodge (from which much of this article's content seems to have been copied). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Stampede pass. I agree with nom. The newspaper record supports this is a train station near Stampede pass that had good ski properties. But there was never a town there. The nearest towns were Easton and Weston. I don't however understand why there was a siding and a station there. Refueling, or maintenance maybe? Here are news clips that are helpful in understanding the place. Describes it as remotest place in county. [27] Stranded Skies spend the night in Meany hut. [28] People ski at Meany SKi hut [29]James.folsom (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In further reading of the papers I did see a passing mention about steam locomotives needing to stop for water after a long climb up a grade. James.folsom (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable railway complex rather than as a populated place (although some railway workers must have lived there). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption that some workers lived is factually incorrect, as my second source makes it clear there were no overnight facilities at the site. Several, other sources I read make it clear it is miles from the nearest and very remote. James.folsom (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Martin Ski Dome, which appears to have been expanded by the same author. There's enough here for an article, but I think the ski dome is a better target. SportingFlyer T·C 17:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Martin Ski Dome, nothing showing this meets GNG or NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 17:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Martin Ski Dome. This page does not meet GEOLAND and would be a delete for me, but it is just about a plausible search term for the proposed target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bintan Lagoon Resort[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Weak independent significant coverage. The resort in question closed down due to COVID/bankruptcy. Uhooep (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Closed or not, it easily passes requirements and is well sourced. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:PROMO. The article and all references on that article seems to be promotion material of that resort. Also, the main contributor of the article, MozaicHotels&Resorts, is an employee of that resort and has been previously blocked for adding promotional content. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true at all, the promotional content they added was reverted. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable independent coverage. I see nothing promotional in the article. The LEED ccertification is noteworthy in itself, and the new conference center got attention too. Being closed is irrelevant, although the closure also got coverage [30]. Perhaps it will reopen. But once notable, always notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Kim, Jae-kyoung (2016-09-22). "Tropical paradise on Bintan Island". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
  The article notes: "With beautiful beaches and countless activities, Bintan Lagoon Resort (BLR) is an ideal destination for those wanting to have fun and socialize at a beach resort. In particular, for those seeking a getaway from hectic city life, this resort offers a complete set of experiences, ranging from sea sports and indoor activities to a variety of dining experiences and cultural tours. Set among 300 hectares of beachfront gardens overlooking the South China Sea, the Indonesian-style 470-room resort has the largest and longest operating beach on Bintan Island, part of the Riau Islands province, Indonesia. ... The resort, which was rebranded BLR a year ago,"
2. Tan, Cheryl (2008-08-26). "The concierge". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
  The article notes: "Sprawl on the beach and enjoy the sun at the newly renovated Bintan Lagoon Resort. Just 55 minutes away by speedboat from Singapore, the resort overlooks the South China Sea and the archipelago of the Riau islands. ... There are all-terrain vehicles for rent, as well as badminton courts and an amusement arcade."
3. Ma, Scarlet (2007-07-20). "Matter of course". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
  The article notes: "Bintan has become one of Asia's most popular golf destinations. The two 18-hole championship courses at Bintan Lagoon Resort were designed by golf legends Jack Nicklaus and Ian Baker-Finch. The Jack Nicklaus sea-view course makes the most of the natural landscape. The 13th hole which has a stream running through it, is the trickiest. The Ian Baker-Finch woodlands course covers dramatically undulating terrain."
4. Yusof, Zaihan Mohamed (2020-08-20). "Bintan Lagoon Resort to close down as Bintan tourism struggles amid Covid-19 outbreak". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
  The article notes: "After 26 years, the popular getaway Bintan Lagoon Resort is bidding visitors a final goodbye, a victim of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has wreaked havoc on global travel and tourism. Mr Buralimar, head of the Bintan Tourism Office, said declining visitor numbers and tourism receipts were behind the demise of the 450-room, five-star resort. A July 31 report filed with the Bintan Regency Manpower Office showed that 500 employees of the resort have been laid off. The resort is about a 60-minute ferry ride from Singapore, in Lagoi on Bintan Island, which is part of Indonesia's Riau archipelago"
5. Moss, Justin (2016-04-23). "Stay and play for the hols". The Straits Times. ProQuest 1783693336. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
  The article notes: "A perennial favourite due to its proximity and accessibility is the Bintan Lagoon Resort (BLR), which has 470 rooms, suites and villas. In July 2012 it launched its own ferry terminal which delivers you right to the resort. In addition to two championship 18-hole golf courses, the resort has over 50 land and sea activities (including jet skiing, tennis, archery and all-terrain vehicle rides and its own 1.5km beachfront."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bintan Lagoon Resort to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to be an abundance of sources both in the article and available online, particularly in connection with the Movenpick takeover. Meets WP:NCORP. Slight issue with a bit of a promotional tone, but that can be fixed. GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Because of that, very little weight was given to keeps based on the assertion that the player will either play more matches or be the subject of additional coverage in the future. Further, the community has been clear that caps do not dictate notability. With both of those in mind, there is a clear consensus that the subject is not notable. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jensen Monk[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Draftification would be an option, but this is a re-creation of an existing draft. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional rugby league footballer who made his professional debut in 2023, played the other day against fellow top level side Warrington in the Challenge Cup. Multiple sources within the article.Fleets (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources 1 and 2 are stats databases, while the next four are trivial mentions of the subject. BLPs require strong sourcing, which is why I draftified it the first time. JTtheOG (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Currently playing in the top tier with five appearances and will likely gain more. Currently borderline on notability for me but will likely be recreated if deleated. Mn1548 (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He might be notable in the future but that would be speculating. Re-create if and when he plays a few more games and more sources are likely to exist. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are exclusively namedrops, zero coverage here. Arguments to keep based only on his appearing in a particular league are strictly invalid per SPORTSBASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of London Broncos players. Fails GNG as there is no SIGCOV. References are routine coverage and stats databases. Frank Anchor 01:22, 10 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) 02:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - two further news sources added referencing academy days, move into first team, and first appearance of the 2024 season.Fleets (talk) 11:08, 13 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) 05:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Young player, will likely have more written in the near future, 8 refs already. Mn1548 (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from repeating your !vote on a new bulleted line. Thank you. JTtheOG (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J Mo 101: @JoelleJay: Would y'all consider a redirect to List of London Broncos players to be a better alternative? JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sensible. I would have no problem with that. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Software law[edit]

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

This has been sitting here unsourced and stubbed for years and years. If there is anything notable about "software law", it could just be a section in information technology law or similar article. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Software. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. Has signficant coverage in Google Books, Google Scholar and elsewhere. There are entire books [31][32] [33] [34] [35] [36], and even entire periodicals (such as the Sofware Law Journal [37]), on this subject. There are also many entire periodical articles. The article is not unsourced now. The topic is very easily independently notable from information technology law, of which it is only part, and not even the majority. Being a "stub" is not a policy or guideline based grounds for the deletion of a topic that satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for editing it, I remember seeing it a few months ago and being shocked how short it was. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the sources uncovered by James. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Information technology law as a section. Even with improvements, this is still minimal stub quality, and can be expanded within the broader context of information technology law until there is something to break out into a more complete article. BD2412 T 01:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That approach violates the guideline WP:PAGEDECIDE, which says "an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page". GNG creates a presumption that this topic should have an article, and in view of the language of PAGEDECIDE, there would have to be at least a policy or guideline to rebut that presumption in this case. That approach also goes against the advice of all three criteria of the essay WP:NOTMERGE. The most likely outcome of that approach will be that information technology law, which is already a large and unbalanced page, will become too large (violating WP:TOOBIG) or more unbalanced (violating WP:PROPORTION) or will omit relevant material (and the recent removals of content from that article probably already violate WP:PRESERVE, due to the removal of entire countries that ought to be included, such as the UK and India). James500 (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 17:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although this should also be covered as a section in information technology law. Software law is clearly separate from IT law as a whole, and I feel a lot of notable cases could be covered, like https://www.zdnet.com/article/sun-vs-microsoft-clash-of-the-titans-5000121284/ (from 2002, so reliable). Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it obviously meets GNG without any shred of doubt, but should be expanded ASAP. No point in having such a crummy stub that serves no purpose or usefulness. But technically it meets notability, so yeah, a Keep is a Keep. X (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Passes GNG and notability is established per consensus. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed[edit]

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

Procedural nomination for deletion under WP:BIODELETE per request on my talk. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Arab Emirates. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (recuse/abstain), neither advocate nor oppose deletion, please do not consider my nomination a !vote. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~poor unreliable resources. Myounes22 (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you voting here despite your conflict of interest on this subject? Your words, not mine. Also, what's unreliable about the sources? JFHJr (㊟) 01:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inaccurate information, lack of reliable references to the person's notability & insufficient verifiable sources. Mywordsmyspirit555 (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC) — Mywordsmyspirit555 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"A user with 2 edits. Account created on 30 April 2024." DBaK (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person holds two very senior positions in the government of Abu Dhabi, analogous to cabinet level positions in other countries. The content regarding alleged violations of hunting laws in Azerbaijan should be removed because it implies a criminal offense though there seems to be no prosecution or conviction, and the offense may not even be considered a crime. If the current content is correct, a violation would be an infraction and a small monetary fine would be the outcome. WP:BLPCRIME is relevant to this issue. I will remove that content for now. Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.doh.gov.ae/en/about-doh/leadership he is not a member Ahmaddarwish74 (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject was, as Cullen328 said, a member of government in not one but ~~two~~ senior positions. Removing disputed content based on dubious sources, what's left is plenty of reliable sources indicating the significance of this subject. JFHJr (㊟) 02:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make that three positions as of 2024 (see added source from Emarat Al Youm). He's currently head of National Media Office and a minister in the Emirates by that virtue. Unrelated, I'm a big fan of irony. JFHJr (㊟) 02:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first resource is not working. all other resources are outdated and many of them are blogs and not reliable. additionally, the article is written in CV mode. i vote for deleting. Ahmaddarwish74 (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC) — Ahmaddarwish74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
But in a number of edits you, Ahmaddarwish74, have indicated that you are the subject of the article. Then at times you seem to be rather obfuscating this factoid. Do you not see how, if true, this leads to conflicts and problems? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmaddarwish74: Have you run across WP:POLITICIAN yet? After you've read it, can you offer any reason to claim that the subject of this article is not a "politician[...] who [has] held [...] national [...] office, or [has] been [a member] of legislative bodies at [national] levels"? JFHJr (㊟) 17:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. @Ahmaddarwish74: The broken URL was easily fixed with an archive link. The internet is forever. I guess that still might be news. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information provided contains inaccuracies, lacks credible references to establish the person's notable achievements, and fails to provide sufficient verifiable sources to support its claims. Femina Anzil (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC) — Femina Anzil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"A user with 1 edit. Account created on 30 April 2024." DBaK (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly held important posts and meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't have enough information with poor unreliable resources require improvement must be deleted or move to draft. Ahmaddarwish74 (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "must" about it. It's a perfectly acceptable article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. This article has improvement opportunities.Rustypenguin (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing GNG, held important positions Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. • Bobsd • (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Elwood Union Free School District. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elwood Middle School[edit]

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

No indication school passes WP:NSCHOOL and written entirely as a WP:PROMO for the school. Was previously redirected to Elwood Union Free School District but reverted more than once. Unless notability can be established, seeking consensus for restoration of the redirect. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and New York. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elwood Union Free School District. The entire article is written in a promotional style, with information that could apply to most middle schools. I can't find anything to suggest that it is notable in its own right. Joyous! Noise! 19:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elwood Union Free School District. An unsourced, promotional piece of fluff, that reads as if it were copied from the school board's page. I don't see a claim to notability. Meters (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect page. This isn't a notable subject and it's clear that these restorations are a connected editor not aware of WP:NOTFACEBOOK. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elwood Union Free School District per all the others. Not independently notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Oviedo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Probable UPE advertisement for non notable individual. Just another working photographer. Refbombed to primary source showing he has done work but there is a lack of independent coverage about him. None of the claimed awards are major awards or are specifically for him. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Advertising, Colombia, Georgia (U.S. state), and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Duffbeerforme,

Thank you for your input. I appreciate your concerns and have made extensive revisions to address them.

I have reduced references to primary source in order to address concerns about over-reliance on self-published materials and lack of independent third-party coverage. The revised article now only cites reliable secondary sources when discussing Oviedo's photography work, clients, awards, and publications his work has appeared in.

While Oviedo may not be a household name, the secondary sources demonstrate he is a professional photographer who has done notable work for advertising campaigns and brands like Altoids, Coca-Cola, Virgin Voyages and others. His photography has received recognition from respected industry awards like the Clio Awards, The One Club's ADC Awards, and his work has been featured in publications such as Lürzer's Archive covering advertising and design.

By removing the recurring primary source references and ensuring all claims are backed by independent third-party publications, I believe the revised article adheres more closely to Wikipedia's guidelines on biographies and neutral tone. I'm open to further improving the article if you or other editors have specific concerns. Unless other editors have substantive concerns about the sources or information provided, I believe this article meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines for creative professionals who have played a major role in significant or well-known bodies of work as outlined under WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. PagePatroller (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PagePatroller is the creator of the article.

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. There are no sources to support independent notability. What we have, and, on top of it, what one can find, are typical listings, such as this; interviews, which, by themselves, are not enough to support notability (see WP:OR, note #d), such as this; self-written bios, such as this; presentations of ads in which a lot of people contributed and our subject is mentioned, such as this and this; advertorials in trade publications, e.g. here and here; self-published sources, like this; and simply more of the same.

As to WP:ARTIST, which has been invoked, here are the prerequisites: The article's subject must be (A) an important figure...widely cited by peers or successors; (B) originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique; (C) created -or played a major role in co-creating- a significant or well-known work; (D) [his] work has become a significant monument, been part of a significant exhibition, won significant critical attention, or been represented within permanent collections. I'm afraid our subject meets none of the four. --The Gnome (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is an advertising photographer but not a notable one. The Gnome did an excellent job analyzing the sources. Cullen328 (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patched (malware)[edit]

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

Reliant entirely on primary sources. Another one of those articles with a name so vague it's basically impossible to search for. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Googling "Win32/Patched" only results in primary source malware descriptions and forum posts. I also don't see any notable incidents which exploited or used this malware. Don't see this meeting WP:NSOFT or GNG. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 13:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2012[edit]

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

This is a series of unsourced lists of no encyclopedic value and we're not the Radio Times. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Radio, and Lists. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of the same list:

* the 2015 does have a single source, but I'm standing by the lack of encylopedic value. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Radio 4 is a single UK radio, Book of the Week is one program on the radio station. So we're into a very small audience before asking who would be looking for this list? The answer being nobody. So the nom is correct this information isn't encyclopedic. And its unreferenced because nobody would ever care to talk about the topic in reliable third party media. Desertarun (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of em. Redundant lists with no encyclopedic value. As the nom states, Wikipedia is not an Electronic program guide. X (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XOFTspy Portable Anti-Spyware[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per attempted 2021 PROD by Bwoodcock

Upon reading the talk page, it appears that this was malware disguised as antivirus. Which is a thing. But that sockpuppetry back in the day kept the article itself from actually saying so. So I think the main problem with this article is that it's substantially misleading, but that there's no practical way to clean it up, because it was of such minor significance that it left no footprint in the media... just a few bloggers arguing about whether it was malware or just antivirus software so bad that it didn't do anything. In any event, now, with the benefit of hindsight, it probably should have been dealt with differently, and it seems utterly un-note-worthy.

Although they were later blocked for unrelated sockpuppetry, I see no reason to doubt their knowledge on this specific issue, which means we've been lying to our readers for 17 years. What a disgrace. Anyway, it's time for this article to go. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Searching online I could find only press releases/copies of press releases, forum posts, download mirrors, and a couple of barebones reviews with no context (example). I couldn't find any reliable sources showing it is malware, but I also couldn't find any reliable sources showing notability either. - Aoidh (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RunScanner[edit]

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

Neither cited source even mentioned the topic. Source searching is finding only software download websites. No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence, or claim to, notability. Canterbury Tail talk 16:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks any WP:SIGCOV. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Housing.com. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Yadav[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Press Releases and announcements. Most of the news is about his firm. The news are about the company. Or it will be better to Redirect this article on Housing.com. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2009-02 ✗ A7

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Housing.com: No independent reliable sources denoting notability. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwinder Singh[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. A Google search brings up more such paid PR publications. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and India. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing much independent coverage and agree with nominator about paid articles.Hkkingg (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fakesysdef[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill malware with no evidence of notability. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Pppery that SealAndBear's description of the malware is indistinguishable from other trojans. This is reinforced by all of the references coming from sites simply announcing Fakesysdef's existence to advertise anti-virus software. MEMZ is a comparable article on a trojan virus, but it justifies its notability through third-party coverage detailing the malware's unique creation and its place in the broader history of computer viruses. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 08:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of rogue security software[edit]

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

Inherently against WP:NOTDIR/WP:NOTDATABASE. Wikipedia is not a malware database. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough notable entries to justify a list. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? A large number of the bluelinks are duplicates pointing to the same set of articles, and a large number of the remainder are themselves undergoing deletion processes as non-notable.. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete- Agree with nom, Wikipedia should not serve as a database for malware every and all malware samples. Most of the entries on this list are non-notable (failing WP:SUSTAINED) Sohom (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sohom Datta: Did you mean to support deletion? This looks like a delete argument but "keep" is bolded. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I meant to support deletion. Sohom (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per WP:NOTDATABASE and because many of these entries do not have an article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ByteDefender[edit]

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

The fact that BitDefender is sometimes impersonated by malware probably deserves a mention there, but I'm really not seeing how this software is notable. The references are just how-to-guides from malware-removal companies, which will presumably publish such guides for every bit of malware to come to their attention, but this seems very run-of-the-mill to me. Yes, this is an indictment of society, but it is what it is. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing to suggest this particular malware is notable. Just some articles about how to remove it and forum mentions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whistleblowers Australia[edit]

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

Changeworld1984 (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but 1 of the sources are its own website. Fails GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mitchells & Butlers#Acquisitions. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Innkeeper's Collection[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - four of five sources are their own website, the other a non-specific cite to an industry publication. AusLondonder (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. AusLondonder (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom, Cannot find any evidence of any notability, Wish I had checked for sources before wasting my time moving the article/updating logo but hey ho. Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Davey2010 (talk · contribs), would you support a redirect to Mitchells & Butlers#Acquisitions per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion? Cunard (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Of course, I don't see why this can't be redirected and redirecting as you say preserves the content in case it ever becomes notable in the future. Redirect per Cunard below. –Davey2010^Talk 07:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for supporting a redirect! Cunard (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mitchells & Butlers#Acquisitions, the company that owns the brand, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 preserved Southern Pacific Railroad rolling stock. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Pacific 1269[edit]

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

Disputed PROD for non-notable locomotive; fails WP:GNG as all but one available sources are user-generated or self-published. (The single published source is a 23-page photo book, and GNG requires multiple reliable source.) Also fails notability under WP:TWP/MOS; there is no evidence of this individual locomotive being superlative or recognized as historically significant. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added references from three more newspaper articles and two more books, which demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG. Opolito (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding citations. Unfortunately, these do not appear to support the case for notability.
- As for the Arcadia books (Niles Canyon Railway and Sacramento's Southern Pacific Shops), numerous RS Noticeboard discussions express the consensus that many Arcadia books are the equivalent of self-published material and thus to be used with caution if at all. (See [38], [39], [40].) Moreover, these books only mention No. 1269 briefly in passing or in photo captions and do not appear to provide significant coverage.
- Western Railroader is not a newspaper, it's a iarchive:western-railroader-february-1962-deep-creek-railroad/page/n7/mode/2up self-described railfan newsletter. Fan publications are generally questionable for notability. (I am not questioning it as a source for factual information, just as evidence of the subject's notability.)
- Finally, since you appear to have the source but it is not online, can you provide more details about how the coverage in the Auburn Journal is significant?
Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is not individually notable it should be merged to a sourced 1-2 sentences at List of preserved Southern Pacific Railroad rolling stock#Preserved steam locomotives and redirected there. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support that approach. Redirect Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of preserved Southern Pacific Railroad rolling stock as an alternative to deletion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Redirect to List of Jeopardy! contestants#David Madden, or Delete. Case of WP:BLP1E that was previously deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) (2nd nomination), but it was recreated. Referencing is very poor (there are no quality RS that cover the subject in any SIGOV outside of being in lists of famous winners). I tagged the article a year ago and suggested it should be redirected as IPs were constantly adding badly referenced WP:PROMO material about his other business interests, but when I WP:BOLDLY redirected it a few days ago, having not had any response to my notices, User:Robert McClenon felt it was better to send to AfD. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only seeing now that it was also at AfD a third time (that AfD wasn't logged on the Talk Page) where it was kept Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) (3rd nomination). Having read the sourcing that was provided for the 3rd AfD, I think it was pretty weak, and a redirect, to his entry on List of Jeopardy! contestants#David Madden would be a better solution. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Arts, Television, and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've now restored the AfD tag from the article, since it was removed by Oompaloompa1971 for apparently no reason. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. McNear, Claire (2020). Answers in the Form of Questions: A Definitive History and Insider's Guide to Jeopardy!. New York: Twelve. ISBN 978-1-5387-0232-1. Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books.
  The book notes about Bruce Lou: "As a student, he’d done quiz bowl, the team trivia competition often found in scholastic settings, and won the National History Bee—a contest organized by David Madden, who was a nineteen-time Jeopardy! champion in 2005—and Lou found himself missing the competition."
  The book notes: "As Watson entered crunch time, Jeopardy! granted IBM access to notable champions from years past, including nineteen-time winner David Madden, whose streak was second only to Ken Jennings’s at the time. Madden played two games against Watson.“"
  The book notes: "A number of Jeopardy! alumni’s new chapters, perhaps unsurprisingly, have to do with trivia. David Madden was a twentythree-year-old grad student when he first played, and as he left the studio after his twentieth game with vouchers totaling more than $430,000, he wasn’t sure what he wanted to do. ... A quiz bowl alum, he ultimately used his winnings as seed money to found International Academic Competitions, which hosts, among other things, the annual National History Bee and Bowl."
  The book notes: "David Madden, the nineteen-time champion, remembers auditioning in the Jeopardy! studio in May 2004. With him was a friend named Jeff Hoppes, who was called to be on the show just before Madden and ultimately became one of the final victims of Ken Jennings, coming in second in the seventieth game of Jennings's seventy-four-game winning streak. Hoppes, Madden says, first played quiz bowl in high school when he was a classmate of Rutter's, and then went on to marry eventual six-time Jeopardy! champion and Tournament of Champions runner-up Larissa Kelly. Madden, Rutter, and Kelly made up the winning team in the All-Star Games."
2. Grant, Meghan (2019-03-04). "'Jeopardy!' All-Star Games finals include Ridgewood native". North Jersey Media Group. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
  The article notes: "This Bergen County person is competing in the "Jeopardy!" All-Star Games this week. ... Who is former champion David Madden of Ridgewood? Among the former champs will be Madden, a member of Team Brad, one of the six trios of top players in the tournament. ... Back in 2005-2006, Madden won $432,400 in 19 rounds in a row — the third-longest winning streak in the game — earning a rank among "Jeopardy!" top players. ... Madden founded International Academic Competitions, running about a dozen contests in 30 countries, including the National History Bee and National Science Bee, hosting tens of thousands of students. Former players have gone on to "Jeopardy!" teen and college tournaments, and five staffers have won on the show."
3. Grant, Meghan (2019-03-05). "Ridgewood native David Madden and Team Brad win 'Jeopardy!' All-Star Games". North Jersey Media Group. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
  The article notes: "Ridgewood native David Madden and his partners on Team Brad won a decisive victory on "Jeopardy!" All-Star Games, and the $1 million prize. ... Madden earned a spot on the All-Star Games roster by winning 19 rounds in a row in 2005 and 2006, the third-longest winning streak in the show’s history. He was “drafted” by team leader Brad Rutter, along with Madden’s former Princeton classmate, Larissa Kelly. ... Madden used some of his first "Jeopardy!" winnings, a $432,400 pot, as start-up money, going on to found International Academic Competitions."
4. Coutros, Evonnie (2005-09-23). "Ridgewood grad strikes it rich on 'Jeopardy!'". The Record. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Former Ridgewood resident David Madden hit the jackpot this month, but it wasn't in the lottery. Madden, a 1999 graduate of Ridgewood High, had a 19-day winning streak on "Jeopardy!" and walked away from the game show with more than $430,000 in cash. Madden, 24, a graduate of Princeton University, lost to a 24-year-old self-employed musician from Decatur, Ga. The episode aired earlier this week. ... Madden, who now lives in Berlin, is studying for an advanced degree in international relations at Frei University."
5. Daugherty, Haley (2023-02-17). "Greater Latrobe Senior High School to host national quiz competition". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
  The article notes: "International Academic Competitions was started in 2010 by Jeopardy winner David Madden. He and his wife, Nolwenn Madden act as executive directors and they expanded the competition globally in 2012."
6. Adams, Caralee J. (2013-07-01). "Reviving History Instruction: What's Old Is New Again". Education Week. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
  The article notes: "With the goal of engaging students more deeply in history, David Madden, a “Jeopardy” champion and former high school and college quiz-bowl player, established the National History Bee & Bowl in 2010. Now in about 2,000 schools—elementary through high—individual Bee competitions and Bowl events are held throughout the country. Mr. Madden, 31, discovered there was plenty of demand."
7. Ferguson, Mike (2014-02-08). "'I'll take history for $1,000, Alex': Founder of history bowl attends Montana competition". Billings Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
  The article notes: "Montana high school history buffs can thank David Madden’s 19-day winning streak on the game show “Jeopardy!” nine years ago for the chance to show off their own knowledge Saturday at Skyview High School. Madden, 32, is founder and executive director of the National History Bee and Bowl, an individual and team competition with about 50,000 participants in more than 200 places around the country and overseas, too. About 60 students competed all day Saturday in the state championship held in Skyview’s theater. ... Madden, a graduate of Princeton University, founded the organization four years ago on his more than $400,000 in winnings on America’s most famous quiz show."
8. Zarnowski, Tatiana (2011-02-28). "Saratoga Springs competition will test knowledge of history". The Daily Gazette. Archived from the original on 2014-07-22. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
  The article notes: "National History Bowl and Bee, a private, for-profit startup company, is based in Ridgewood, N.J., where owner David Madden is from. The company conducted a pilot competition there in May. In 2005, Madden reigned in a 20-game run on “Jeopardy!,” the second-longest ever after Ken Jennings, who had a 74-game winning streak."
9. Strauss, Robert (2005-10-09). "Worth Noting; I'll Take Quiz Kids For $600, Alex". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
  The article notes: "Mr. Madden was the captain of the Quiz Bowl team at Ridgewood High, and was on a similar freshman team at Princeton."
10. Pakkala, Tiffany (2008-01-10). "'Jeopardy' winner turns to hiking with a purpose". Savannah Morning News. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
  The article notes: ""Jeopardy" fans remember him as the calculating young trivia expert who won 19 times on the game show and left with winnings more than $442,000, in part because he sought out the "Daily Double" early to maximize his cash. Now David Madden, 26, is crunching numbers for a different reason: He's hiking 3,000 miles to help raise money for a group that offers free and low-cost lodging to hospitalized soldiers and their families."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow David Madden to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these refs is WP:SIGCOV on the subject in a major regional/national media outlet - none.

No main regional or national American news outlet thinks he is notable enough to do a piece on him - if they don't think he is notable, why do we?

Passing mentions, and mostly for the BLP1E, in small media outlets, is not the General notability guideline. If that was the case we could get rid of BLP1E as a guideline as most cases have such coverage. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The subject received significant coverage in 2005, 2008, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2019, 2020, and 2023. A person who falls under WP:BLP1E does not receive sustained significant coverage over 18 years for his activities.

He was a nineteen-time Jeopardy! champion in 2005. He founded the International Academic Competitions, which hosts the annual National History Bee and Bowl. He competed in and with his partners won the "Jeopardy!" All-Star Games in 2019. A person who has received significant coverage for multiple events does not fall under WP:BLP1E.

The subject is from New Jersey. The subject received significant coverage in a 2020 book published by Twelve. He received significant coverage in a 2014 article in Billings Gazette, the largest newspaper in Montana. He received significant coverage in a 2008 article in the Savannah Morning News, a regional newspaper that covers the Savannah metropolitan area and parts of South Carolina. He easily meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.

Cunard (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But he hasn't received any significant coverage. If WP:GNG was "significant number of passing mentions in non-national/regional sources", then he would be a keep. But the requirement is for "significant coverage", and in quality sources (of which there is also none).

I could create an AI to scan 3rd tier US media to find names briefly mentioned (many of which will have a BLP1E element), and I could create 1 million more Wikipedia BLPs in the morning, but I would probably be in ANI shortly after.

No encyclopedia outside of Jeopardy! fan sites, will ever have an article on this subject. His entry on List of Jeopardy! contestants#David Madden captures everything that is notable about his BLP1E. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources such as Pakkala 2008, Ferguson 2014, Grant 2019a, and McClear 2020 are not passing mentions. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Cunard (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no requirement on WP:SIGCOV for sources to be "a major regional/national media outlet"; topics can be covered locally and still be notable. WP:NOTPAPER. —Ost (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourcing identified by Cunard is lasting and diverse in its source markets. I think this is beyond BLP1E territory. Star Mississippi 02:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets Basic. Desertarun (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Archibald[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article recreated by WP:SPA following deletion a year and a half ago. I am bringing this to the community's attention. I am personally a weak delete: somewhat accomplished person, but I think it falls a little short of our notability criteria. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Canada. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This still isn't properly sourced as getting him over WP:GNG — nine of the 13 footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the four hits that come from real media aren't about him, but just glance off his existence in the process of being about people or organizations that had cases come to his courtroom, which is not enough to get him over WP:GNG if he isn't actually their subject. Bearcat (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. mostly primary sources. Hkkingg (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Procedural) -- concensus can change, but not likely within 6 months. There were good keep arguments before and good delete arguments then too. But let's not go through the whole process again so soon. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only plausible argument for keeping (ultimately not successful) in the previous AfD was per WP:AUTHOR, as an author of legal textbooks. But nobody making that argument linked to any published reviews and I couldn't find any. The current version doesn't even mention the books. The previous deleted version also noted that he was the editor-in-chief of Advocates Quarterly, but to make a case for WP:PROF#C8 we would need to argue that it is a major journal and we don't even have an article about it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per arguements at the last AFD Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Dili[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable historic hotel in East Timor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wallflower (band)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article since 2011. Searching for refs is difficult as there is a more successful band called "The Wallflowers", but even after including band members names into the search it seems like they received no coverage. Nothing in the article writeup suggests Wikipedia notability. InDimensional (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m the original article author. Happy to have article deleted. Band came to an end in 1998 with little notable activity.

(talk) 13:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and England. InDimensional (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 20 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) 08:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sometimes relisting helps come to a consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Timor[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Travel and tourism, and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 20 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) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be sufficient sourcing, this is particularly good. It's got quite an interesting history with the role it played in a number of conflicts in East Timor, which has been covered in numerous sources. AusLondonder (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing from AusLondonder convinced me that the hotel is notable for the history of East Timor. The hotel is the location of flashpoints in the conflict such as reported in the Guardian 24 years ago. It is also the location where the referendum results are being read. I am quite convinced that the place itself is notable. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added additional sources, including the www.dn.pt article and the Guardian article, but never came back to !vote. This hotel is a character in the story of East Timor's independence, as supported by reliable sources. Oblivy (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has enough sources and seems notable Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bintan Agro Beach Resort[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For some reason, the nominator considers that all the hotels and resorts in Bintan Regency fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 20 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) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Brazell[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian cricketer player, to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found were 1 and 2, both from the same publication. JTtheOG (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'd say there's enough in those sources to keep the article for now, given the player has only debuted this season as there will likely be more coverage in the coming future. Wouldn't be against draftifying, but also a suitable redirect at List of South Australian representative cricketers also, so two suitable WP:ATDs. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think 1 and 2 are something which cover independently about the subject, plus there are other refs in the article. These can be considered as enough, since the player debuted just in this season, more coverage is likely to come in future if he continues playing. In terms of SNGs, it meets WP:NCRIC as well. Robo^CricLet's chat 05:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The South Australian Cricket Association and Cricket Australia are not independent of the subject. The former directly administers the South Australia cricket team that he plays on, and is affiliated with the latter. Given his young age, I support draftification as an ATD, as well as the redirect suggested by Rugbyfan22. JTtheOG (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Although, they cover directly about the subject, the problem is that those are primary sources. Those contain useful information, so I linked those. However, apart from these two, I guess this is a secondary source which discusses about the topic, his education qualification and also his performance. I just wanted to say that since he debuted in this season, all these can be considered enough for a keep. Anyway, if the consensus reached by other editors is not to keep it, then I'll agree with a redirect. Thanks. Robo^Cric Let's chat 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~, not enough independent secondary material to meet GNG but there may be in the near future.
Redirect. JoelleJay (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inclined to agree with Rugbyfan22 on this one. AA (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or redirect to the list of SA cricketers. Drafting this serves zero benefit really - it'll just end up getting deleted as no one will remember the draft is there. If there's not enough coverage for now then redirecting is the normal response in situations such as this - much easier to reverse a redirect and restore the page before adding the additional sources that are likely to appear if he continues to play. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is clearly no additional support for Deletion but no consensus yet as opinion is divided between Keeping, Drafting or Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To better summarize the sources in question, there are a couple sentences of coverage here, though it's mostly quotes, and four-ish sentences of coverage here. Both are from The Advertiser so they should be counted as one source. JTtheOG (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 television stations in Tennessee#LPTV stations. The argument that this meets GNG was refuted without subsequent rebuttal. Daniel (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WCKV-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in Tennessee#LPTV stations: a 25-year-old station is probably more likely to have the required significant coverage, but this topic area's inclusion standards are no longer based on existence and the mere possibility that there are sources — they require SIGCOV and the definitive existence of same. Unless better sourcing emerges than directories, FCC records, and non-independent sources, an {{R to list entry}} as an alternative to deletion is the best that can be done. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has enough coverage to meet the WP:GNG, including [[41]][[42]] Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to state list That's not SIGCOV. That's mostly regurgitated press releases. About the only substantive fact I learned was that this was once a FamilyNet affiliate. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talakayan Ng Bayan[edit]

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

Article unreferenced since 2009 and tagged as such since 2010. No good hits on GSearch, GNews and GNews Archives. Found several false positive as Talakayan ng Bayan means "People's Dialogue" and is used by several entities aside from DWBL. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 05:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I created the article almost 15 years ago without being aware about WP:GNG. I haven't touched the article since then. Safe to say, I barely found any source about the now-defunct radio show. ASTIG 😎🙃 13:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the creator agrees the topic isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K21JQ-D[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. If it is a rebroadcaster, merge to the parent station. Otherwise, merge to the owner. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to merge to. The owner doesn't even have an article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. I don't see any redirect or merge target. Let'srun (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While this is mentioned at list of television stations in Washington (state)#Translators, it is as as relay of K36EW-D, which does not have (and never has had) an article. I suppose the whole Blue Mountain Television operation is a run-of-the-mill religious station that does have some locally/regionally-produced material and is not entirely national programming, but lacks the significant coverage we require. A remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Daniel (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KAJS-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Nebraska. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: It had been a while since the last nomination of a run-of-the-mill 2010s-established nothing-local DTV America/HC2/Innovate station that nominally survived a 2023 bulk nomination; as ever, the amount of significant coverage and the likelyhood of SIGCOV are the same (i.e. zero). No reason to have anything more than an {{R to list entry}}. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KRLB-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough SIGCOV in Tri-Cities paper. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François Mathieu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NARTIST. Gedaali (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Arts, and Visual arts. Gedaali (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 20 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) 06:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are other potentially notable people with this name, including fr:François Mathieu, a French senator, as well as a Quebec sculptor. I don't see an article about this painter in the French Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No clear consensus to delete after a month of discussion and relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imre Vallyon[edit]

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

As per the notability guidelines for authors, an author is notable if: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

None of the preceding apply in this case and almost all the sources in the article are not independent. There are almost no reviews of his work and the awards he has won are not notable. The only significant coverage is of his legal issues. Ynsfial (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Spirituality, Hungary, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Stuff article certainly establishes that he's notable, although the focus of it is on his child molestation convictions. The award from the Ashton Wylie Charitable Trust might be notable given that it's in conjunction with the New Zealand Society of Authors, which is definitely notable.-Gadfium (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the Stuff article establishes his notability as an author. It's mostly about his convictions as you said. I'm struggling to find any reviews or analysis of his work. Even if the award is given in conjunction with the NZSA I don't think it's enough to confer notability. Do you think it is? It might also be worth noting that Vallyon himself is a member of the New Zealand Society of Authors, a membership he pays for.~~~ Ynsfial (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gadfium is not arguing that he is notable as an author. Gadfium is talking about GNG. Schwede 66 17:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood, sorry. What other sources do we have for GNG then? We would need multiple. Will we be establishing his notability as a criminal if not as an author? or as a spiritual guru and leader? The only significant coverage in general seems to be that Stuff article, which focuses on his history of sexual assault. It's not unusual for a local newspaper to cover local criminals and crimes.

The article consists of primarily sourced biographical information, a list of books with no analysis or reviews and a mention of a minor prize. If we were to remove the Scoop article, a local paper detailing his criminal convictions, what would his notability be based on GNG or otherwise? Ynsfial (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Source 6 is a book review in a RS, this in a Seattle newspaper discusses the author and his work [43], should be at basic notability. Discussed here [44] in a RS from New Zealand. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider Horror News Net a reliable source, see How to Get Your Book or Comic Reviewed on (HNN) Horrornews.net? and How to Expedite your Film Review? Their About us states:
"HNN simply is a means for your film, product, book or studio to have existence on the internet. Whether bad or good, a product without existence in the search engines is simply without relevance. You work hard to create something, while we work hard to create a site that provides existence for your items."

It's used as a reference on dozens if not hundreds of articles, so this should be brought up on the WP:RSN.

The review in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is a republished one from Blogcritics. Archived discussions on WP:RSN seem to indicate that it hasn't really been considered reliable the times it was brought up since it seems to accept content from any blogger. The website's About us states:
"Blogcritics gives writers the opportunity to gain an exponentially higher level of visibility (and thus, traffic and search rank) than they could ever achieve through their home blog or website alone." Mooonswimmer 01:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book review is a terrible source. Many egregious spelling mistakes (''thru'' (!) and ''alot'' for example), it refers to the author by his first name and most importantly it's written by a random writer for a site that publishes paid book reviews as Moonswimmer pointed out. The other source is also unreliable. Are you still convinced they're enough for notability? Ynsfial (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. The two reviews mentioned above by Oaktree b (the only ones I could find) are published in unreliable sources and are likely paid pieces. I'd say the Stuff article counts towards WP:GNG, but it's all I could find. The two awards he's won are minor and of debatable notability. Mooonswimmer 03:18, 15 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) 05:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The stuff article and the Dutch-language NOS article establish WP:GNG in my opinion. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand on how these two articles establish his notability and what they establish his notability as? I agree the Stuff article would count even though it's a weak source considering it focuses on his crimes and a local newspaper reporting on crime committed by a local isn't so uncommon. The NOS article focuses on the Dutch branch of the FHL, which is not notable, breaking with its leader Vallyon. They mention a Dutch victim of his and mostly discuss the group and separation. There is some but little information to extract about Vallyon.

What is Vallyon notable as? As an author? Do you think the book reviews provided by Oaktree B are reliable? Or as the leader of the FHL? Or as a child molester? The latter is what the only two weak sources are focusing on. Are there any other sources? Ynsfial (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre[edit]

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

Although the title of the article is "Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre", it actually only lists the deeds of four women during the Tiananmen Incident, without summarizing the role of women as a whole in the Tiananmen Incident, this article is more like talking about the experiences of these four women during the Tiananmen Incident. 日期20220626 (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Politics, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is on a viable-looking topic and is well referenced, and can be improved. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. There are a couple of articles that talk about gender in the Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, the Feigon article cited in the artile and there is an article from Radio Free Asia on the forgotten legacy of women and the protests. I agree with the nominator about how the text does not match the title of the page, and I do not think there is sufficient information for a stand-alone page, especially as the women mentioned in the article all have a stand-alone page, so no information will be lost. --Enos733 (talk) 18:06, 21 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) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nominator, the article is more like a compilation of the acts of some individuals rather than discussing the role of women. The article 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre is already very large hence I would oppose a merge. I think relevant information not appearing in the stand-alone articles should be copied across, for example the section on Wang Chaohua.

Golem08 (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely fascinating! Please do not merge with anything else. People can only read so much before they get bored and look for something else. Per the "1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre" navbox, there are numerous related articles. Won't hurt to leave this as is. — Maile (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the article isn't in the best condition with its over-focus on four particular women's participation rather rather than on summarizing more general academic synthesis of the women's history of the event in general, I find the essay Deletion is not cleanup persuasive in this case. Deleting an article about a valid topic makes it more difficult to improve later, and even in this non-ideal state the article remains educational and of interest. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the challenge once cleanup is completed (deemphasizing the sections on the four women), you are left with the one paragraph opening, containing only one reference. And much of that prose is unreferenced - (e.g. "many women contributed their opinions and leadership skills to the movement" and "Although women had substantial roles, they had different standpoints regarding the hunger strike movement"). While I agree this is the case, the expectation is that there would be general academic synthesis of the women's history of the event. But those sources do not seem to be there, even with a Google Scholar search. - Enos733 (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be a legitimate subject. Summarizing more general academic synthesis of the women's history of the event would be fine and possible, but we should also include all specific women/examples as they are right now. No significant removals of text would be needed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of East Timor, London[edit]

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

One sentence-stub that completely fails WP:GNG. Sole source is a government list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Article merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London. Not notable enough for an article but notable enough for a list entry and redirecting to that is better for readers. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on redirecting this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 06:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Installer VISE[edit]

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

The article does not align with the English Wikipedia's criteria for both WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSOFT. The sources used in the article are mainly either primary sources or focus on the company rather than the software. An earlier attempt in 2011 to remove the article was made due to the lack of detailed and in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Currently, there is still a lack of widespread coverage in reliable sources for this article. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Articles that have been proposed for deletion cannot be soft deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shadow311 you relisted this saying that articles that have been proposed for deletion cannot be soft deleted, yet this exact soft deletion has already happened for two other articles for which the deletion has been proposed by the exact same user: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMCO MSI Package Builder and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zero Install, so how is it at the end of the day?!? Thanks! --Vlad|->

@Vlad: We're at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which is different from Wikipedia:Proposed deletion.

~~Comment~~ Keep - After looking at the nominator's edit history, I'm a little worried that there is some sort of vendetta, ulterior motives or conflict of interest going on here where aside from creating a couple of Armenian articles this editor appears to just be trying to delete installation technology-related articles. Many of the articles that the nominator has suggested for deletion have been on Wikipedia for many years - in the case of the WiX article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WiX) it must rank among the oldest articles having been started in 2004, so my question is why are these all being nominated for deletion all of a sudden? TubularWorld (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It is easy to find independent WP:RS of very reasonable quality. For example, here is an article in an IEEE publication reviewing a different installer and using Vise as a reference point for comparisons: [45]. --Викидим (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any suggestions in keeping this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 06:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my vote to keep after having done a little more research into this software (and added a few things to the article). It appears that this was quite popular 20 something years ago, even to the point that Apple themselves distributed their own software using it. TubularWorld (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Rajya Sabha election in Tamil Nadu[edit]

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

This was an indirect election, fails WP:Notability. I suggest it be either merged or redirected to the page, 2013 Rajya Sabha elections. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Chevallier[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted at AfD many years ago, and nothing of substance seems to have changed: my WP:BEFORE search didn't find anything that would meet the GNG (just a handful of blogs, interviews, etc.), and none of the WP:NARTIST criteria appear to be met. Not notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and France. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any good sources that show notability. The article itself has a lot of sources, but they are basically all low quality and/or primary. Cortador (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already deleted from French wiki consensus was not notable. Orange sticker (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close‎. This is a temporary close, as the consensus below is clearly not to retain the article; further, there is consensus to merge to Mayoral elections in Montgomery, Alabama. However, as that article does not yet exist, I cannot close as merge to that destination as a matter of historical precedent. Any interested editor is encouraged to create the target article, then merge this content, and replace this article with a redirect as per this AfD.

Note that if this merge and redirect isn't executed in the next couple of weeks, this procedural close should be replaced by a speedy deletion to execute the consensus below (ie. not retain the article). Such a deletion can be reversed immediately, should any editor wish to execute the above-described article creation, merge and redirect. Daniel (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Montgomery mayoral election[edit]

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

Only a single source, not enough to demonstrate notability. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Alabama. Owen× ☎ 17:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable mayoral election (in fact, this is the first I ever heard of it). TH1980 (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:POLOUTCOMES. I tried several searches and yet found nothing at all. In the past, we have generally redirected individual non-notable candidates to the election article, and I see no reason why we can't do vice-versa to Bobby Bright. Bearian (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear more points of view on whether the proposed redirect and its target article are acceptable. I've never come across an election article being redirected to a candidate's page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one source and it's an excel file, only a city election, nothing to ATD here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that other mayoral elections in Montgomery have articles, thus I suggest all these articles should be Merged to a new election overview article, Mayoral elections in Montgomery, Alabama. Possibly something similar to Mayoral elections in Chattanooga, Tennessee or Mayoral elections in Evansville, Indiana? Samoht27 (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for 2009 and 2011 (those should have been included here), but 2015 feels that it has decent coverage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a newly-created Mayoral elections in Montgomery, Alabama as that's the general practice for mid-sized American cities. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 05:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obviously no consensus to delete, and no consensus to merge has been achieved at this time. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Boss (Metal Gear)[edit]

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

The current sources at reception were just listicles and rankings. I tried to find any sources about this character per WP:BEFORE, but I cannot find any sigcov. Relying mostly with this single journal here [46] wouldn't help notability. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Science fiction and fantasy. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Conyo. This article isn't meeting notability as of right now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Characters of the Metal Gear series#Introduced in Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater as an WP:ATD. I found a GameRant article [47] but not sure if this would really count. I'm also not sure if GameRant is reliable or not. Conyo14 (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is situational as a source, but Valnet sources does not help notability according to WP:VG/RS. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 03:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, half a source. But my !vote shall remain merge. Conyo14 (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:ATD. There is some sourcing but it's questionable whether it reaches WP:SIGCOV. This can be covered at the main game article. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] She has also been discussed with sigcov in these lists: [53] [54] [55] [56] I have not looked into any book or scholar sources yet, nor have I checked Japanese sources. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the Kotaku and IGN looks good, thou other sources doesn't really help GNG, but can also he used to improve the article further. So, I feel like the article is barely notable for now but is still in weak state. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After checking further, I felt like I'm satisfied a bit with the sources that were brought here now. But, I'll let afd stay here let others state their opinions here. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've decided to create a source analysis of Cukie's sources, and it has changed my !vote:

Source analysis by Conyo14

Source assessment by User:Conyo14
The Memory Card .15: Snake pulls the trigger	Plot WP:SUMMARY/brief routine mention of a plot. N
[57]	Brief analysis, but uncertain of reliability. Partial otherwise.
Breaking Down my Favorite Boss Fights of all Time	WP:BLOG N
Best Metal Gear Solid Boss of All Time Face-Off: The Winner Revealed	Although it is a ranking, there is enough to meet WP:SIGCOV Y
La legendaria soldado The Boss]	Meristation is considered reliable and the article does not read like a blog. Y
The 10 Greatest Final Bosses in Video Games	Brief mention, not in-depth analysis.
The best boss fights involve getting picked on by someone your own size	WP:BLOG N
Seven Video Games Where You Beat Up Your Dad	Brief, but maybe on the line between partial and full. I'll put it as good. Y
The 25 most inspirational female characters in games	WP:ROUTINE N

Not that it matters to affecting your !vote, the Game Developer blog is one that was chosen as a featured blog by GD editorial staff, and the author is a published SME in gaming. As far as The Mary Sue goes, it is listed as a reliable source on WP:RSP. I also do not believe that the use of WP:ROUTINE is appropriate; none of the citations I listed are news sources, all of these sources were posted years after release, written (presumably) because the author wanted to write about it. The Destructoid source, for example, is written as part of a series of significant parts of video games for their staff, with the author saying things like "Shooting The Boss, while over in a blink of an eye, really is a pretty innovative and surprisingly memorable moment. While it could have easily been incorporated into the always impressive cutscenes, making one, small creative decision to have the player perform this final killing shot makes the scene infinitely more powerful" as well as discuss the relationship between the player, Snake, and The Boss, their musing over whether the player is required to kill her or just let her die, and speculation on what Kojima was intending to depict by making the player execute her. I would strongly dispute the notion that ROUTINE applies in any capacity here. WP:SUMMARY also applies to an extent, but not to the entirety. The source is being utilized not for the description of the plot of The Boss, but for the author's feelings on her and her death. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide the thread for The Mary Sue? Conyo14 (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions should be linked on the perennial sources page in The Mary Sue's entry - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found it [58]. I will update the source analysis. Conyo14 (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the keep !votes?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 05:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources listed above by Cukie Gherkin. X (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:ATD. The article itself was made by a blocked editor with zero conception of notability. I've noted the sources raised by Cukie Gherkin and do not believe they indicate enough SIGCOV for the article to be notable. If these are the best sources, the character is most fitting to a list of characters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on the sources found by Cukie Gherkin and as analyzed by Conyo14. Searching in Google Scholar was also promising, with results including Metal Gear Solid: Hideo Kojima's Magnum Opus. Those inclined to WP:OHW may find the coverage in Emotions, Technology, and Video Games and "On Narrative and Gaming Gestalts" useful as well. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to lack of participation (WP:NOQUORUM). Despite three relists, once socks are struck there is insufficient participation here to find a consensus. This close is with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Daniel (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Little Rock tornado[edit]

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

Article was not at all ready for mainspace and it currently fails WP:LASTING. Practically the entire article is a direct copy and paste from the meteorological synopsis and damage summary for this tornado in Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023. This article was created by me, in draftspace, doing a direct copy/paste of the damage summary so I could locate LASTING impacts (14,000 bytes). In this edit an anonymous user copy/pasted the entire meteorological synopsis section from the outbreak article (11,000 bytes). To note, the article is only 26,000 bytes. The entire article is a CONTENTFORK copy/paste, which was not ready for mainspace at all and was being edited by SOCKS. Either delete or draftify back like it was, but it clearly should not be an article right now. As a second note, the draft was submitted to AFC by a user who had not edited the article at all. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to draft Why didn't you just move back to draft? This was unnecessary. ChessEric 06:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric: If it was moved rather than deleted, I would want it as a userspace draft not actual draftspace. The issue here is in the draftspace, SOCKS (both Andrew5 & Lokicat) find it and try to "improve it", plus even if it wasn't pure anonymous SOCKS involved, there is copyright issues involved (due to the copy/pasting mess) and people were able to get it through AfC from draft-space into mainspace without me, the original draft creator, even being aware. With all that, this is more of a TNT method (i.e. delete it and then redo it in userspace). Heck, the whole thing as it is right now is a copy/paste from the outbreak article so in 5 seconds, I could redo it in userspace. So yeah, don't think of this AfD as a true "delete it due to lack of notability", but more of a TNT request that is also using notability and the dang copyright and copy/paste issues as the backing for that TNT request. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why you should have just put it in draft and rewritten or paraphrased some of it. Plus, the event details are fine and the section on the main page can be shortened. Plus, believe it or not, the SOCKS have actually made some helpful edits. The AfD was not the way to go. Plus, this tornado inflicted significant damage along its path in a major metropolitan area, so I think it will easily meet WP:Lasting. I'm not saying an article is guaranteed though. ChessEric 13:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t doubt that and again, I’m not saying this won’t get an article. For reference this entire edit is a copyright violation. Making it a draft again will not get rid of that. The SOCk reverted edit is also a copyright violation, as both are just a copy/paste of another Wikipedia article without any reference that content came from another article. That could be easily solved with an inter-wiki link, but it just makes the edit history weird and talk page weird. Legit, the history itself needs to be TNTed and then as this is at this point a near 100% direct copy/paste, I could create User:WeatherWriter/2023 Little Rock tornado with a copy/paste of the damage summary and basically restart the whole thing before the SOCKs came along. Did they help? Sure. Did they save maybe 5 minutes of work only though? Yes. It is better to literally TNT this, get rid of the copyright violation and just restart. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a courtesy ping for ChessEric. Just for reference look at User:WeatherWriter/2023 Little Rock tornado. The new draft, made in minutes, is already 3,000 bytes larger than this article and doesn’t involve the SOCKs in the edit history nor the two very large copyright violations. The TNT is basically to clean-up the SOCKs and copyright violations from the edit history, since chances are high, the draft was pushed into mainspace by one of the two SOCKs well before any clean-up edits could occur. So yeah, don’t think of this AfD as anything with notability. This is truly a WP:TNT to remove the SOCKs from play. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the section in Tornado outbreak of March 31–April 1, 2023. We are becoming way too lax in giving individual tornadoes article. In no way should this, 2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado or 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado have standalone articles. Stand alone articles should only be if the information absolutely cannot fit in the section, such as the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado. I highly doubt that this article can be much more than a WP:CFORK of the section. The readable prose is around 53,000 bytes, which per WP:ARTICLESIZE puts it in a grey area if a split is needed. But I don’t think this is the tornado, given its limited impact. A redirect to the section is a good idea because it’s highly unlikely this tornado will achieve notability outside of the tornado outbreak. 148.76.84.29 (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC) (Confirmed and now-blocked SOCK) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Due to the copyright violations as mentioned above, we could either do a delete and redirect closure, or WP:RD1 the copyright violations. 148.76.84.29 (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)~~ (Confirmed and now-blocked SOCK) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some laundry-free discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'm confused by the nominator's stance here. You state "Either delete or draftify back like it was" but in the discussion comments, it looks like you are arguing against a move to Draft space. Please be clearer because if draftifying (to any previous version) is acceptable, then we can close this AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per usual, WeatherWriter is endlessly yapping about irrelevant crap that makes the discussion impossibly hard to follow. His rants can be found in numerous AFDs and discussions, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwestern U.S. floods and tornado outbreak of June 2021. User should likely be topic banned for disruptive editing at this point. 99.196.129.143 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC) (SOCK strikethrough.) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just semi'ed it so we reach a consensus without socks. I have relisted this but don't consider myself involved. Star Mississippi 00:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any thoughts from more independent editors?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 05:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ nomination withdrawn as a commenter found evidence that this article was incorrectly titled, and better sourcing does emerge under the more correct name. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Traders Company[edit]

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

Article about a company, not properly sourced as passing WP:NCORP. As always, companies are not "inherently" entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH -- but the only source cited here is a single book in which this company gets mentioned but is not the principal subject, which is not enough all by itself, and the article has existed in this state since 2013, and been tagged as single-sourced since 2018, without ever having a second source added. And on a WP:BEFORE search, I found a few brief glancing namechecks of its existence in The Globe, but nothing substantive or detailed enough to make up the difference: mostly what I found was coverage about sick or dead people who had been employees of the company, not coverage about the company. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per the included source, the company seems to have been more commonly called Northern Trading Company. I got some more hits, especially newspaper hits, under this name. Ravendrop 05:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Nice catch, and I can corroborate that the sourcing indeed improves if I search for "trading" instead of "traders". Consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvan Grove, Indiana[edit]

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

This was back-entered onto the maps from GNIS, which cites an 1876 atlas of the state. Baird's History of Clark County, Indiana on p. 100 has a very brief reference to it as a post office, and I found nothing else of relevance other than that there was a school there at some point. I just don't see that there was ever a settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No information found; furthermore, the coordinates don't match the description in Baird's, which says Sylvan Grove was one quarter mile south of Memphis, while the coordinates are for a site about a mile southeast of Memphis. Someone made a mistake somewhere, and we might be able to figure out where if we had information, which we do not. Thus, delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The marker is probably in the wrong place because Sylvan Grove is 3 miles NW of Charlestown, I think it's more likely along the other road running NW. Problematically it's also this guys birthplace Jefferson_C._Davis [59]. Someone in Clarke county also graduated from "Sylvan Grove". Those were the only two hits in the local paper. This is just me dropping a hot potato and fleeing.James.folsom (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital (Daet)[edit]

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

Reliant entirely on primary sources. No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no good hits on GSearch, GNews and GBooks. GNews Archives gave an article about the family of doctors who founded the hospital from a small clinic. However, I'm not sure that that is enough to warrant notability. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should have never been created. Catfurball (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is disagreement over whether GNG can be demonstrated by sources but a clear consensus that this article should be Kept. I don't see any value in relisting with this clear of a consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Glen[edit]

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

The only reference for this stub biography of a footballer is a database entry, so this stub no longer satisfies sports notability and does not satisfy general notability. Draftification will provide six months to find significant coverage.

Draftify as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while I am aware of the changed notability criteria, seems a bit odd to go straight to AfD for a subject like this where the article already existed for some years under the old rules, would it not be more appropriate to tag for verification first, then move up from that if not acted on? It seems very likely this player will appear in the British Newspaper Archive and there are far more 'deserving' nominations from this era than an international player and cup winner? I have added refs that indicate his prominence, but appreciate they would not satisfy SIGCOV. Crowsus (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Absurd nomination. This player represented his country and won national competitions. If that doesn't satisfy notability then this place is a complete waste of time. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. 200 professional appearances in England and Scotland, a Scotland international, there is coverage out there including in Paul Smith's book about Scotland players - silly nomination. Good work by Crowsus and JM on expanding. Giant Snowman 09:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again the Keeps make n:football arguments despite it being abolished in 2022. I struggled to find coverage of him let alone significant coverage. The book is one source (if that) meaning he fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I struggle to find coverage of him" - apart from the 13 refs in the article? Do you really think that a player with 200 professional appearances in 1890s/1900s will not have been mentioned in any newspapers that (shockingly!) don't appear online 130 years later? We have lost all WP:COMMONSENSE if this article is deleted. Giant Snowman 21:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the refs to stat websites? The refs to mentions in match reports? All of which don't count when it comes to passing GNG. Mentions in newspapers is irrelevant as it is sigcov that is required. Dougal18 (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two books about the history of Hibernian FC describing Glen's career and playing style isn't significant coverage? Come off it. You just don't like articles about footballers. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hibees has 13 hits for Glen. The making of Hibernian has one hit. Those are not sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in four published books isn't significant coverage? I'm wondering what you would consider that to be. A book about the player himself?!? Demanding that level of coverage would lead to the deletion of the vast majority of biographies on this site. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know that a few sentences in a few books is now significant coverage. "Left back Bobby Glen from Renton had several international honours. Strong and clever, he was a favourite of the supporters and was recently at the top of his form." If that is sigcov then GNG should be scrapped. Dougal18 (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would strongly agree with User:GiantSnowman's and User:Jmorrison230582's points. I think it would be odd for us not to have an article about a Scotland international who clearly is covered in published sources. Dunarc (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been updated, clearly notable player, easily passes WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The Paul Smith's book It already seemed to be enough for WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, also has fine sources that attribute significant coverage. Noorullah (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Responding to Jmorrison230582, the article didn't say that his team won national competitions when I nominated it for deletion, and the nomination was not absurd. Govvy is correct that the article has been updated. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps I should have said that the Heymann criterion was to provide significant coverage in seven days, but perhaps that should be implied. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News Bites[edit]

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

Unreferenced since its inception in 2010. No notable hits in GBooks, GNews Archives, and GNews. Be prepared for a lot of false positives in your search due to how common "News Bites" is as a phrase. Weak Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Studio 23 as plausible target per WP:ATD. Weak as there are a lot of similarly named programs/media entities found during my Google Search. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:20, 27 April 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) 00:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced and also not notable enough to be on wikipedia ^48JCLTalk 00:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Studio 23. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News 23[edit]

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

Tagged as unreferenced since 2012. No notable hits in GBooks, GNews Archives, and GNews. Be prepared for a lot of false positives in your search due to how common "News 23" is as a phrase. Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Studio 23 as plausible target per WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 27 April 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) 00:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Studio 23 Yet another rebadged ABS-CBN newscast whose only difference was its demographic. Nate • (chatter) 02:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. given improvements made to the article since its nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pentecostal Mission[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG - I could not find significant coverage of this church in reliable sources independent of the subject. HenryMP02 (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, Sri Lanka, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep am finding some reliable sources coverage such as this, I haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep have added references and is a century old church founded in 1923 feel the resources will be offline. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I see where you are coming from. This is probably a case where the sources do exist, but may be difficult to find initially. HenryMP02 (talk) 22:30, 20 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!} 23:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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