Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 04 May 06 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MV Algoma Enterprise[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG, no coverage in secondary sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:57, 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 Corrugated fiberboard. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Containerboard[edit]

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

Appears to be just a stage in the production of corrugated fiberboard. The picture at the top of both articles is identical, just with different captions. Article is unreferenced and includes two citation needed tags. Could possibly be merged with corrugated fiberboard rather than deleted, but does not appear to me to add anything not already in that article. Adam Black talk • contributions 23:32, 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 merge‎ to Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards 2023[edit]

Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards 2023 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Main page Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards exists which is also likely not notable so not seeing how this would meet notability guidelines. Cannot find enough coverage to establish it for this specific year. Will likely add the other years as a global discussion as well. CNMall41 (talk) 22:33, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Owen, Indiana[edit]

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

A nice little bit of WP:SYNTH going on here, as the cite for the origin of the name (which has the wrong page number, BTW) doesn't mention this town, and Baker gives a completely different origin story for the township name and says this place was named after it. Anyway, we have another "no there there" issue. I'm not confident that this was a town per se. Mangoe (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Local papers are clear this is a township, the post office in the Forte source is probably named for the township. People went through Forte creating or citing articles for towns based on a naive understanding of old post offices.James.folsom (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Sushma Swaraj#Personal life. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bansuri Swaraj[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Not elected in any office. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:07, 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 Hans-Joachim Roedelius. Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wie das Wispern des Windes[edit]

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

Rejected PROD. I initially PRODded due to a lack of reliable sourcing on Google and a total lack of sourcing in the article; the PROD was removed by the same person who added the discogs link. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hans-Joachim Roedelius: I also could not find any coverage. There may be some to be found in German/Norwegian newspaper archives which I don't have access to, but I have doubts if the album was indeed only released in one country. Hard to say whether the artist would've received significant coverage for any given album; I have personally heard of him (and even listened to one of his bands' albums a couple times), but I never had any notion that he was famous enough for that kind of coverage. Those archives would be worth checking (and if somebody does so then please let me know as my vote could easily change), but without that this article cannot survive as is. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:28, 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. If an editor wants to work on this article as a draft, let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 21:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maaya Lakshmi (Fictional Character)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG: this is a fictional character from a non-notable book; a search finds no significant coverage in independent reliable sources; article was created by the book author against policy on WP:PROMO and self-promotion. — cactuswriter (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. — cactuswriter (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searched for any coverage. Found none. Fails WP:GNG. Book in which character appears would fail WP:GNG as well. Was G11 deleted the other day, but author recreated it. Might as well delete it for good by going through AFD process. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This was speedily deleted yesterday as promotional and avertising. This version appears to be the same text without the links. This character is from vanity publications by the author. There are no refs and no credible claim to significance let alone notability. The author persistently failed to declare their COI despite being asked and reminded by several experienced editors, until this evening. Article is very probably a candidate for speedy deletion - again. Fails WP:GNG by a very long mile.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Velella abd @Rsjaffe,
    Thank you for your feedback and persistence to delete this article. as i am still learning to be a writer on Wiki, i thought this would be a good opportunity to learn through publishing about my own work. I have no intention of making money or even promote anything. its just a test article that i have placed online with WP.
    now coming to the mistakes listed. I was asked to list the COI- which i did. refer User:Sitanshu Srivastava
    I was asked to remove the links, which i did.
    now please let me know what else can i do to publish this, and if you thnk that this can not be listed no matter what, i can provide you coverage links from local news sites that covered it in some parts of Florida as well as in Lucknow,India as well. and can provide the ISBN number too.
    also, i really appreciate your help and @Velella its a kind request that before considering it for speedy deletion, help me push this forward. P.S. I am not doing it for the money. coz i won other businesses like World Model Hunt. Bragsocial, WMH India .Do IT FOR ME LLC, OM funding Gurus, Ahealthplace.com, Aeroway.one. earthbyhumans.com and the lists goes on. and i have not listed these or any of my other companies here for commercial reasons. for the book, i have a Non profit which supports kids and i want to donate the proceedings to them, so i wanted it listed here. and yet, if there is nothing we can do about it, then its fine. i tried doing my part and you did yours. !
    I also vote for Delete if that's the only choice.
    Thank you.! Sitanshu Srivastava (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Regardless of any of the COI issues that prompted the initial speedy deletion, the fictional character and the book they appear in both fail the WP:GNG. No sources can be found on either the book or the character. Rorshacma (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rorschacma. Can't find enough coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mammone[edit]

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

Rugby player who played a handful of games 7 years ago and hasn't returned to the sport since. The subject fails WP:GNG as the closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 20:46, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Cheung death urban legends[edit]

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

Essentially a conspiracy fork (WP:POVFORK) that this person's suicide was either faked, a murder, due to a love triangle or due to demonic possession. Leslie Cheung#Death and legacy already covers what needs to be said on the subject. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:37, 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 keep‎ the content. This does not preclude a rescope, redirect or rename to be about the Garage. A consensus to delete is not going to emerge here Star Mississippi 02:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverland, Washington[edit]

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

The article only has one source that says it's a populated place (GNIS, source 1). GNIS is not considered reliable by the Wikipedia community for the classification of places. The Second source is a coat hanger for the garage. Unfortunately, notability of the Garage is not transferable per WP:GNG. Both commonly used Washington place name books don't list this place [1][2]. The Washington newspapers contain articles about a farming district named cloverland and state that it is the farmland surrounded by the forks of Asotin creek. Basically, Orchards [3]. There are a couple of google hits implying it's a town, but looking at the actual sources, you see that it's just a rural area. This source, helps by explaining that it was the name of the voting precinct at one time [4]. There is a website claiming it's a ghost town that looks convincing but it is copied from one of the sources that misrepresented the place, and there was only a cemetery and a garage which isn't the makings of a town. It also uses several pictures of the garage from different angles to make it look like there are more buildings. The fruit operation mentioned in the newspapers failed to pan out, and the area became wheat fields instead of a town. That Garage seems to be all that was ever there. Basically, reliable sources say it was a failed orchard development, that got converted to wheat fields, and there may have been some plans for a town that didn't work out.
James.folsom (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. James.folsom (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cloverland Garage, which is on the NRHP and is the only barely notable thing about this place. Page 423 of the Lyman source suggests (rather vaguely) that there may have once been a school at Cloverland, but I couldn't find anything else. Seems like it was an "area" rather than a well-defined community. Regardless, without more in the way of sourcing the place isn't notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call, I didn't think to look for an article on the garage. James.folsom (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's not much left now, but Cloverland was once a real community. The NRHP nomination for the garage (which I added as a reference) goes into its history; it had a peak population of 400 when it was supposed to be an orchard community, and when that didn't work out, residents shifted to other forms of agriculture. The Tri-City Herald covered its history in an article on Washington ghost towns as well, and this book seems to include a fair bit of information on Cloverland, though I can't access the full thing. Based on mentions in area newspapers, it had a school until the 1940s, and it continued to have residents until at least the 1960s. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 21:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to go with keep on this one. Looking at the topos is maddening because it straddles the corners of two maps (and there are labels for it in the corners of the other two) but the oldest ones show a street grid in the NW quadrant of the place, and this is verified by an aerial from the 1940s, which also shows buildings in this sector. By the next aerial they are gone. I think there is enough here to write a short history of this ghost town, though merging that into the NRHP article is not unreasonable. Mangoe (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - FYI the GNIS is a United States federal database - so not sure why it is not reliable. — Maile (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References Section: The NRHP National Register of Historic Places (United States Department of the Interior National Park Service) form gives the evidence of notability.
Please see 7 Description:
"Situated on a county road at the site that was once downtown Cloverland, the Cloverland Garage is a vernacular commercial building of frame construction." and the entirety of 8. Significance, which details the history of the town. "The townsite of Cloverland was platted early in 1902, and land sales started immediately.Cloverland was billed as "the best opportunity for investment in the West today," according to a newspaper advertisement of the Asotin Land and Irrigation Company in the Asotin Sentinel. Buyers came from such distances as North Dakota, Virginia, and North Carolina. The site of the Cloverland Garage was purchased by Benjamin R. Howard on June 28, 1902. By late 1902, Cloverland had 20 houses, a school, and the store/hall which was built on Benjamin Howard's lot and is today the Cloverland Garage." "Cloverland's population probably peaked about 1910 when the census showed 400 residents".
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66:: FYI we have found that GNIS is reliable for names and usually locations of places, but not for their character. See WP:GNIS for the gory details. Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: OK, but just so we don't get confused about what I copied above. The National Register of Historic Places (United States Department of the Interior National Park Service) is reliable. And that is the source I used above. Wikipedia partners with Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places and WP has thousands (perhaps millions by now) of articles based on their records. — Maile (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not a town, there was a source that made an assumption that has been repeated by other sources. You don't have to go any further than the newspapers of the time to find out it was a farming district. EG [5] one of probably 20+ I could trot out that refer to it as an area (why would they call it an area if it's a town). There are plenty of cemeteries, garages and schools in rural areas, so those things don't prove anything. This "place" is not in the reliable place name books for a reason. If you care about the truth, over just being difficult you'll figure it out.James.folsom (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob SquarePants (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The disambiguation page fails WP:DAB as it only lists one topic and not many topics, thus not making it a valid DAB. It's also a good idea to delete the dab pages that redirect to that page as well. kpgamingz (rant me) 19:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think the nominator doesn't understand WP:DAB (or I'm being stupid), but it looks like it disambiguates between a bunch of pages. In particular:
"Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead"
"The page at Rice is about one usage, called the primary topic, and there is a hatnote guiding readers to Rice (disambiguation) to find the other uses." Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per @User:AMK152. Svartner (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep plenty of different assumptive uses for this DAB page. AMK152 put it best. Conyo14 (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The term "SpongeBob SquarePants" is not ambiguous. Per WP:DABCONCEPT, this should be an article, not a disambiguation page, because "the primary meaning of" SpongeBob SquarePants "is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article". In fact, the concept of SpongeBob SquarePants already has an article, SpongeBob SquarePants (franchise), and that article describes each of the items listed on this DAB page. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zxcvbnm's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christo Bezuidenhout Jnr.[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searching difficult to his more-notable father having the same name and playing the same position, but don't think there would be enough there anyway as his career hasn't really kicked on. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA World Cup songs and anthems[edit]

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

Falls under WP:TRIVIA and possibly WP:FAN. Also, fails WP:V. kpgamingz (rant me) 18:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Football. kpgamingz (rant me) 18:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:LISTN states "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There is RS coverage discussing "FIFA world cups song" as a group.[1][2] However, the "other songs and anthems" and "broadcaster theme music" sections are of dubious notability/verifiability and stretch the list criteria a bit; they should be removed. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Flores, Griselda (2022-10-24). "Here Are the World Cup Songs & Anthems Through the Years". Billboard. Retrieved 2024-05-05.
  2. ^ Singh •, Sanjesh (2022-10-12). "What Are the Best FIFA World Cup Anthems of All Time?". NBC New York. Retrieved 2024-05-05.
Keep: Seconding Jonathan Deamer's assessment, and also noting multiple reliable sources in the list covering individual songs, including Billboard, NPR, and La Nación. On the other hand, many sources (especially the USERG 45cat and Discogs) need removing/replacing. Definitely needs work, but that's no reason to delete. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The official songs are part of the FIFA event. Svartner (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above, clearly notable topic. GiantSnowman 09:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, some of these songs are very notable, it's a good list article. Govvy (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per above. dxneo (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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! 21:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ockie van Zyl (rugby union, born 1991)[edit]

Ockie van Zyl (rugby union, born 1991) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up were trivial mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 18:43, 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 List of Namibia national rugby union players. Liz Read! Talk! 21:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gino Wilson[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Namibian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The most I found was a handful of sentences here after being named his club's player of the year, but no sustained or in-depth coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Changing my recommendation to Redirect to List of Namibia national rugby union players. JTtheOG (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marsu B.V. v. Disney[edit]

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

Not notable on its own; could be merged into another article; suggested by User:Sammi Brie Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:01, 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 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! 21:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anguilla at the 1998 Commonwealth Games[edit]

Anguilla at the 1998 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary fork. No secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Many of these articles have already been deleted, see AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominica at the 2010 Commonwealth Games. AusLondonder (talk) 17:51, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellania (nightclub)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP/WP:NBUILD/WP:GNG. All coverage online is trivial. Can't find any reliable, independent in-depth sources on the subject. Clearfrienda 💬 17:44, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 00:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Karr O'Connor[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for people. Should have been deleted at the previous AfD four years ago. As one of the article's own sources reveals, the article was written by O'Connor's colleagues and the AfD was influenced by off-wiki canvassing. – Teratix ₵ 16:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the AfD I'm referring to is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Karr O’Connor (with the fancy apostrophe). – Teratix ₵ 16:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, none of the arguments there about using WordPress a a source for their employee are valid at this point in time; they are primary and not useful other than for basic confirmation of certain biographical details (not proving notability). Oaktree b (talk) 18:48, 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 merge‎ to Germantown Friends School as a natural ATD. Owen× ☎ 00:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Germantown Friends School alumni[edit]

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

Fails NLIST, sources not found showing this has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources.  // Timothy :: talk  15:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no independent sourcing here, the list seems to have resulted from inside sources, therefore this list rests on an unreliable NPOV and is probably very one-sided. We have no way of knowing about all the "other" alumni who are not listed here, perhaps because they don't convey the same flattering message. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge / redirect to Germantown Friends School I'm not sure if a WP:BEFORE check was done, but a spot check shows that the overwhelming majority of the individuals listed are notable and that the standard of WP:NLIST is met and will be further enhanced by the addition of reliable and verifiable sources for those already listed. Worst case is that the list should be merged and redirected back to the article for Germantown Friends School, which is where it started in the first place. Either way, non-notables should be removed and more sources added in addition to the ones I have added and plan to add. Alansohn (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to parent article. Not convinced there is any need for a separate article. Ajf773 (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to parent article as is standard for these lists. Mangoe (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge because the list is too long for the ex-parent article. --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Germantown Friends School. Although not an independently notable list per NLIST, there is guidance somewhere about splitting out lists of notable people from articles where the list becomes excessively long. I think the guidance may actually be for places rather than schools, but it is good advice where the list overwhelms the article. Some of those lists can have hundreds of entries. In this case the list has a very impressive 43 named notable alumni. That is a lot for a school, but is it so excessive that a spin out is required? I don't think so. The list is unlikely to grow significantly from here, and 43 is by no means excessive. I also note that we have a category giving the same list as a standalone page. This page would be better placed in the school article. I note that Melchior2006 has a different opinion on that, but there is no SIZERULE case for a split, and the solution to the size of screenspace absorbed by this list would be to expand the article. With this many notable alumni there must be more that could be said about this school. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close‎. This has been G5ed already. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every Woman in This Village is a Liar[edit]

Every Woman in This Village is a Liar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NBOOK. All the sources I can find seem to be interviews and mainly focus on the author rather than the book. --Ferien (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --Ferien (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I cleared out the more blatant promo, copyright, Amazon sales link, the copyrighted photo uploaded to Commons as "own work" etc, with a growing suspicion that this is the latest sock of User:Ndizzy4glo: see SPI for background. I can find no guidelines in WP:RSP for which Nigerian newspapers to steer clear of for paid placement (along the lines of WP:NEWSORGINDIA), but the interviews here look like a lot like that: in the earlier version, there were several identical interviews published to multiple sites, and it's unclear why all these outlets are suddenly writing articles in 2024 about his 2009 novel. Wikishovel (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect they were created to add "notability" for this Wikipedia article. The one I linked below talks about his debut novel (from 2009), yet was published less than a few weeks ago. I guess a 10 yr old book could suddenly go viral, but it seems odd. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Very little discussion of this book, other than in Nigerian media. Odd that most of these sources that I find online are recent (in the last month) for a book published over a decade ago. I had hope for this [6], but it's just the author expressing how they feel about things, not really a review of the novel. Oaktree b (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b thanks for your vote, since the article doesn't qualify to be on Wikipedia. I agreed for nomination, let it be deleted.
    Please I don't know much about wikipedia, I only joined to contribute to Local government areas in Akwa Ibom State, since I saw the novel I decided to create an article for it. I'm deeply sorry if this article goes against wikipedia policy.
    Usimite (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: The creator of this item has been blocked on Wikidata for block evasion of Rock2222, Ndizzy4glo. Bovlb (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article creator has been blocked as a sock of Ndizzy4glo here on ENwiki as well, thanks Bovlb. Nominated for speedy G5. Wikishovel (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did find a review in Champion Newspapers Limited, which appears to be a Nigerian newspaper. I am not familiar with whether this is an RS, but if it is, it would bring us halfway to NBOOK. As for why it's getting some attention now, according to these interviews (which are not useful for notability), it looks like the author is talking about this book as part of his promotion of a newer book. [7][8] ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. which does not preclude a talk page discussion to identify a target to which to merge Star Mississippi 02:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvalu House[edit]

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

An honorary consulate located in a residential house. No suitable secondary sources, only sources are a government diplomatic list and Embassypages.com. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We cannot close without consensus on a target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:58, 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 no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 00:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montserrat–United Kingdom relations[edit]

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

Despite the title the article is primarily about the representative office of Montserrat in London. Lacking secondary sources to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 10:25, 21 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) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The current article is poor, but I'm certain that the topic is notable: after all, we're talking about the relations of the United Kingdom with one of its overseas territories! There should be some space somewhere for encyclopedic coverage of how the central government of the United Kingdom relates to (the government of) one of its overseas territories.
At the back of my mind, a history section could be easily constructed from existing content at Montserrat. From a Geography class case study in my school days, I remember the UK government's donations to Montserrat following its volcanic eruption received quite some coverage. Also, this (non-independent) webpage from the UK Government can point to other important events or episodes worth mentioning.
Nonetheless, three concerns prevent me from !voting Keep:
  1. Firstly, would any such article simply be a WP:COATRACK? We would need to find some reliable, independent sources that discuss the topic qua topic, rather than a miscellany of "here's how the UK and Montserrat interact with each other".
  2. Secondly, I notice other BOTs don't seem to have a "BOT–United Kingdom relations" article (cf. Foreign relations of the Falkland Islands redirects to British Overseas Territories#Foreign affairs; Foreign relations of Bermuda redirects to Bermuda#International relations. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign relations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, closed as Delete in March 2015).
  3. Finally, I'm not convinced this is the best article title for the topic. It suggests that Montserrat is a sovereign state, rather than a self-governing territory, and that feels odd to me. And while I'd happily support a redirect or merge as a WP:ATD, I can't find any appropriate target.
So, my instinct is that there is a notable topic here, but the current article doesn't do it justice, and I don't think the article title does either. I'm not sure if the topic merits a standalone article, and there's no obvious alternative to deletion. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:58, 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamnuska Mountain Adventures[edit]

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

Non-notable mountain guiding company in Canada (per N:CORP). There are some scraps of articles in local old Canadian newspapers, but nothing nationally or internationally (and zero SIGCOV anywhere). Some famous Canadian climbers have worked there, but the company never appears in any of main climbing RS (per WP:NCLIMB). Article had a lot of unreferenced promotional material, which I removed, but ultimately it has no future on Wikipedia. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, and Canada. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very little of the content in the article is referenced or supported by reliable sources. Of the 6 references provided, 3 of the links are broken or the original articles have now been taken off-line. It fails on the basis of verifiability Sadly what is little sourced material is left does not qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Dfadden (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What content do you believe should be referenced? Jdemontigny (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for starters, the entire Sponsorship and Community Involvement section contains only 4 refs, 2 of which are dead links, another points only to a homepage for the John Lauchlan award and makes no mention of Yamnuska Mountain Adventures and the final one makes only passing reference to the organisation sponsoring a $500 prize in a local book contest - hardly in-depth, significant coverage!
    The list of issues is a very long one - history section talks about changes of ownership and board appointments with no sources cited; guides section makes generic, unreferenced claims about pioneering new routes through the Rockies; a throwaway line after a referenced claim that they were the second largest employer of certified guides in 1993 that says "it is expected that this is true today" - really? How do we check this anyway as the original source is a 30 year old off-line newspaper article that you'd likely need a Canadian library or subscription to an archive service to verify.
    There is a large amount unencyclopedic promotional content throughout the article that likey violates WP:PROMO (eg. "The very exacting standards to which Yamnuska Mountain Adventure's guides are held should not obscure the fact that the guides are the heart and soul of the company." or "Individuals, groups, corporations and military organizations from all over the world continue to choose Yamnuska Mountain Adventures as their provider. Yamnuska Mountain Adventures has become known as the leader in the industry with excellent program delivery, high levels of risk management and excellent customer service." Once again, neither of these statements are supported by any sources, let alone reliable ones. Dfadden (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd love to see this stay up as I think Yamnuska has a long (47 years) history and has had many touch points within the Canadian mountaineering community that are worth knowing about. You're right it needs some work with the references. Here is one for the John Lauchlan award with Yamnuska listed to start: https://www.alpineclubofcanada.ca/community/financial-grants/john-lauchlan-award/
    How do you suggest I reference or find sources that we have military contracts?
    You seem pretty motivated to delete this content but I would suggest that working to bring this to the right level would be in Wikipedia's best interest. Jdemontigny (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate you feel strongly about the importance of this company. I don't have any personal investment either way. Im not motivated to delete content arbitrarily, but afyer objectively assessing it against wikipedia's content policies, the case to delete it far outweighs the case to keep it in my view. The link you provided to the John Lauchlan award doesnt actually mention the company, but has its logo as a sponsor. Under Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines that are the basis for what should and should not be included in the encyclopedia, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I'm failing to see how the inclusion of the company's logo on a list of award sponsors is anything but trivial.
    As to your question about finding sources related to military contracts, if you cannot locate any, this fails the general notability guidelines of WP:Verifiability - if you cannot find a reliable source that supports a claim, then that claim shouldn't be published in an encyclopedia. There are many companies with Defense contracts and partnerships all over the world that are well documented in industry publications (for example this article, which provides independent, significant coverage [9]).
    If you think you can fix the article to an standard that satisfies the notability guidelines, you can request it is moved to the draft space where you can edit it, however I'm slight concerned that you said "How do you suggest I reference or find sources that we have military contracts?" This implies you have some connection to this company that may represent a Conflict of Interest. If this is the case you should declare it upfront and click on the blue link to familiarise yourself with the policy around COI edits. Dfadden (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:57, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Primeira Liga broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are announcements and does not help to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:56, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scottish Professional Football League broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are announcments and does not help to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:54, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 16:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Danish Superliga broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the only source is primary and does not help to assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:54, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Phillips (DJ)[edit]

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

Reason Sarcastathon (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it doesn’t meet the criteria for notability. 1. Out of 4 references, 2 are links to artist’s own pages. 2 are PR pieces. 2. They have never had any single or album chart in their home country or abroad. 3. Nor have they had a record certified as gold. 4. They’ve never ‘had important coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country’ 5. Not released any albums. 6. Hasn’t been a member of 2 or more notable groups. 7. Hasn’t become one of the most important representatives of a notable style or the most important of the local scene of a city 8 & 9. Hasn’t won any awards 10. Not made music for any notable other media 11. Hasn’t been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network 12. Nor have they been subject of any documentaries etc Sarcastathon (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:53, 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. I find the arguments to delete, especially the nomination and Mccapra, the most persuasive in this discussion. Would be open to draftying upon request. Daniel (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen University[edit]

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

I know it is unusual to delete a University - but I cannot find any online information about the University (except the bare fact that it is on Yemeni University lists - although I am not sure how old these lists are). It appears no longer to have a website. Links are either not orking or provide no helpful info. No obvious lkinks to anything else. The wiki page suggests the unbioversity is strong in nutrition - but https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9517972/ suggests it is not on the 2022 list of Yemeni universities awarding decrees in nutrition. Perhaps it has changed its name or amalgamated? Newhaven lad (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Yemen. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is entirely unsourced (general external links are used as reference) and filled with original research. Before reaching a conclusion whether to delete or keep I think it'd be fair if someone draftified it and use sources then we could've judged it based on it's merit. But if it stands as is, then delete seems impending. X (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It exists and it is a university. The poor sourcing is due to the language barrier. Desertarun (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regular university. Agreeing with Desertarun. gidonb (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input. "It exists" is not a valid argument in favor of retention, especially when we haven't verified that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a private university it needs to meet WP:NCORP which it definitely doesn’t. I’ve searched in Arabic and got no news hits at all and nothing much on a general search. Nothing to suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comment above. Okmrman (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheen Buneri[edit]

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

The subject fails to meet the criteria outlined in both WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. While the subject has received some press coverage, but it's too common for journalists to get some sort of press attention on every one of them. WP:ROTM coverage is not sufficient to pass WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:44, 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. Owen× ☎ 00:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kalanaur (1748)[edit]

Battle of Kalanaur (1748) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources on this page almost all deal with WP:RAJ, with many of the sources (including Singh), tracing back to the Panth Prakash, which fails WP:RAJ. Some of these sources don't even state that such a thing happened, and nor do any other major sources regarding this campaign such as Hari Ram Gupta. Noorullah (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, here's Hari Ram Gupta, who is a major historian in this region and has no recollection of such events whatsoever. [11] Singh (who relies on Prakash as stated on page 49) [12] Noorullah (talk) 22:28, 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 ☎ ✎ 02:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Copy and paste of previous AFD vote- 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) 04:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above, additionally, No historians calls this event by the name "Battle of Kalanaur", which makes the title is made up by WP:OR, and backed by religious texts.--Imperial[AFCND] 06:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 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. Indian historians like Sarkar's sources are used because historians today depend on their secondary work. Quick overlook, this page has four reliable sources and two of them are on the battle segment that I can see from historians Gandhi and Singh. RangersRus (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two of the reliable sources are used in the aftermath section, while the other two in the battle rely on said primary source.
    The article in general is poorly written and no historians even call this battle the "Battle of Kalanaur", which as aforementioned by Imperial, would make this entirely WP:OR. Noorullah (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    you will find many pages created by editors where title is given pertaining to the location given in source where fight presumably happened. RangersRus (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RangersRus, Only the two sources cited in the aftermath section (which has no connection with the article's scope) are reliable. Sikhs In The Eighteenth Century by Gandhi is not WP:HISTRS; both the publisher and the author are involved in religious-related areas. While the reliability of Ganda Singh is acceptable, I wouldn't cite him here due to his political involvement and stances, especially in Operation Blue Star, which are based on religious issues. Considering the article's scope falls within his area of interest, citing from him would not be appropriate imho. However, I would not object if his citation were to be reinstated again. And yeah, just because a military conflict was occurred at a place called "x", we can't call the conflict by the name "Battle of x", that lacks in the sources in this case.-Imperial[AFCND] 07:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know about any or what political association of historian and maybe is best for discussion with evidence on WP:RSN. Some pages on wikipedia I came across these historians are well accredited. The location, you will find many pages created by editors where title is given pertaining to the location given in source where fight presumably happened and the source does not have to explicitly say the title but any piece of information that indicates location where the fight took place is used to create the title. You should reinstate the sources as the nomination is still in progress and use WP:RSN for discussion. RangersRus (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's best not to conflate RSN with AFD as it complicates the discussion. We can carry RSN later without mixing to this session. I'll reinstate the sources, but I still disagree with using titles like "Battle of X" regardless. The source must explicitly state "Battle of X" for it to be acceptable. If articles are created with such titles, it's preferable to move them to more suitable titles or assess whether they meet GNG. Imperial[AFCND] 17:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The source must explicitly state "Battle of X" for it to be acceptable. If articles are created with such titles, it's preferable to move them to more suitable titles or assess whether they meet GNG." You are right here. I was giving examples of what I noticed how many page titles were made like the nomination here. But you gave a formidable tip. RangersRus (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:40, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iqra Hasan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Notability isn’t inherited. The father being an assembly member, herself being a candidate of a party for an election that is to come doesn’t qualify for NPOL. This is one of the many articles I’ve found about Indian politicians who are participating in the coming general election. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maula Bakhsh Khan (Ali Khan)[edit]

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:SINGER as well basic WP:GNG - existing coverge is WP:ROTM —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I did the NPP review and noted at the time that I considered it to be an edge case regarding wp:notability. By "edge case" I meant the norms at AFD, not the most rigorous possible interpretations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:57, 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 1.0[edit]

Windows 1.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsupported Tyytthtyyyyuyj (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stick Soldiers[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline but I would appreciate a sanity check from someone more experienced in videogames. – Teratix ₵ 12:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 12:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stick Soldiers 2 has marginal interest from sources with WP:NONENG ([13][14]) or a dubious CNET write-up ([15]) but I think it's comfortable to delete here: those three sources would be shaky ground to establish independent notability for that game, and the other games and the series as a whole seem not to have enough coverage to merit an article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete couldn't find any sources to establish notability, Vrxces did a great job though, but I still don't think the article is notable. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WeFinance[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Just wanted a second or third pair of eyes on these sources [16] [17] [18] - I don't think any are suitably reliable or independent, but their coverage would be significant. – Teratix ₵ 11:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Websites, and California. – Teratix ₵ 11:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • More or less agree that the three linked sources aren't suitable. Have not yet done my own BEFORE though, so I'll leave the bolded !vote for later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. One mention in the NYT, but just that one sentence. Nothing NCORP-relevant, and I assess the chance of any such sources turning up as very unlikely. Also, the article is a brochure, so there's that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I found this which would indicate it should have gotten some press, but cannot find anything that meets WP:ORGCRIT so obviously fails NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Rutledge[edit]

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

Not notable. I have been unable to find enough references. TheSwamphen (talk) 10:08, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Airways[edit]

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

While airlines are generally notable, I'm not sure that the assumption holds for virtual airlines -- particularly with such thin sourcing. Avgeekamfot (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Optimizer[edit]

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

Sources are all just database entries. No evidence of notability. Not eligible for proposed deletion due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dyfuca * Pppery * it has begun... 15:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can find plenty of user-generated sources that discuss this malware, and the databases mentioned, but nothing secondary. It's obscure enough that those sources should be enough for anyone seeking information; we don't need a WP page. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing from reputable pubs. Existing coverages are standard database entries and, as highlighted above, user generated forum discussions. X (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - was unable to find significant coverage; does not meet WP:GNG. Suriname0 (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XXXDial[edit]

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

No evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:51, 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 keep‎ without prejudice against renomination in three months if sourcing isn't improved. Owen× ☎ 11:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beenish Chohan[edit]

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Previously deleted via AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beenish Chohan —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with various significant roles in notable productions. (see page, articles about said productions and https://tribune.com.pk/story/550204/lsa-and-the-nominees-are-tv-nominations; https://tribune.com.pk/story/863646/pakistans-top-six-damsels-always-in-distress for example) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mushy Yank, The first source confirms her role in "Chalo Phir Se Jee Ke Dekhen," but I couldn't find much about this show in RS. The second source verifies her involvement in "Babul Ki Duaein Leti Ja" and "Meri Behen Meri Devarni," but there's only ROTM coverage turning up for these shows in RS and nothing which can verify they are signifiant work. So, the question arises. if these 3 shows aren't significant works, how does this actor meet the WP:ACTOR? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, The quality of the sources is be hard to judge but due to the fact that the editor who created this article is, at best, sock-adjacent and has a poor understanding of notability, I would argue for a delete. At the same time, I will encourage Saqib here take more care in future noms, even socks can (and often do) create articles that can pass notability and it's better to leave those up and focus on stripping WP:PROMO and WP:PUFF from them (bonus points if you can dig up a scandal, which undermines the sock's business). Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allan Nonymous, See , I'm not advocating for the deletion of this BLP because it was created by a suspected sock or a UPE. My stance remains that this BLP should be deleted because it fails to meet the WP:ACTOR. I've provided my reasoning to Mushy Yank above, while @CNMall41 has provided theirs to @Hydrangeans. I hope Mushy Yank doesn't mind me saying this, but they seem to be casting keep votes on some of my AfD discussions without considering that simply appearing in TV shows and getting award nominations for those appearances in such TV shows isn't sufficient. We need to assess whether those TV shows are indeed "significant" based on whether they've received significant / in-depth coverage by RS or if they've been even getting reviews by RS. If not, then these actors clearly fail to meet theWP:ACTOR even if they do lead roles in those TV shows. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Nominator and Mccapra offer the most persuasive P&G-related arguments, which have not been adequately refuted. Daniel (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramgopal Suthar[edit]

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

As noted in WP:NPOL and WP:NSUBPOL, Wikipedia doesn't normally consider municipal councillors notable enough for a separate article, unless they've received significant press coverage in that role. The rest of his roles have been low-to-mid-level party leader jobs and a political appointment as chair of Skill Development Board, Government of Rajasthan. No significant coverage of him per WP:GNG or WP:BIO in reliable secondary sources; what I can find on him in a WP:BEFORE search in English and Hindi (रामगोपाल सुथार) is routine coverage of his recent appointment as chair, and some WP:PRIMARY source quotes from his speeches. Wikishovel (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added enough resources for Position held in Part over time, are they not sufficient for Publishing the article? Vishwakarma-anie (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
user:wikishovel I have added enough resources for Position held in Part over time, are they not sufficient for Publishing the article? Vishwakarma-anie (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions normally take about a week. Wikishovel (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment His only claim to notability in Wikipedia terms is being chairman of the state skills development board. Being an appointed chair of a state advisory board is not enough to justify a biography on Wikipedia, and the fact that he’s previously been a municipal ward councillor and party official doesn’t help. The rest is just a ridiculous hagiography, entirely unsourced, about his revered rather and devout mother raising him in a holy city among the sand dunes, a quote from his dad, and a homily about how he sacrificed his personal advancement to devote himself to the plight of the marginalised. None of this stuff belongs in an encyclopedia. Mccapra (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. However note it is already at Death of Umm Fahad Star Mississippi 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm Fahad[edit]

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

A Iraqi TikTok personality who was recently shot. Seems to lack any notability or sources while alive, a violation of WP:VICTIM and WP:GNG. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 21:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually think Internet "personalities" are worth the time of day. However, she seems noteworthy as it further highlights the ludicrous things that people will fall foul of the morality police in the middle east.Salty1984 (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a result of "Morality Police" - as Iraq doesn't have an official designated police force. Iran on the other hand, yes. The Ghashd Ershad (Morality Police) exist there, but don't shoot people (albeit they do harass people). This woman was killed by some lunatic fanatic by the looks of things, nothing related to morality police. Just thought I would clarify that. Ali313korosh (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•My understanding is that in Iraq, an influencer may speak about social and political issues as well as promoting cosmetics and clothing. Perhaps an explanation of the role of influencers would make the death more significant. - - - - 65.18.206.23 (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:30, 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 keep‎. The concerns raised about how the article is currently written are valid and need to be addressed editorially, but there's no consensus that they amount to a need for draftification. Owen× ☎ 13:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing[edit]

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

This article is largely primary sources and WP:SYNTH of these sources. The first half is mostly just explianing what hyperlinks and framing is (mostly unnecessary WP:HOWTO), and the 2nd half largely acknowledges there really aren't copyright issues in US/Germany and other contexts. Why does this even exist? ZimZalaBim talk 19:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The absence of prohibitions for a subject controversial enough to have led to lawsuits is itself the notable thing worth being covered in an encyclopedia. There is nothing wrong with this article that cannot be fixed. BD2412 T 22:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article exists because the topic is notable: It satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin with significant coverage in books and periodicals in Google Books, Google Scholar and HeinOnline, in particular. There are many entire periodical articles about this, such as: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. No evidence has been offered of actual SYNTH or HOWTO. James500 (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: I agree that this topic is notable, but the article as written is basically an essay. For example, this part of the lead is written as if it's part of an argumentative paper: The issues about linking and framing have become so intertwined under copyright law that it is impractical to attempt to address them separately. As will appear, some decisions confuse them with one another, while other decisions involve and therefore address both. Likewise, this section is 100% OR: Related issues arise from use of inline links (also called image-source or img-src links because the HTML code begins with "img src=") on Web pages. An inline link places material — usually an image such as a JPEG or GIF — from a distant website into the Web page being viewed. For example, the adjacent image is the seal of the USPTO, as shown on some of its pages at the USPTO website. Additionally, the "History of copyright litigation in field" section is also OR, as it lists several cases without providing reliable secondary sources that establish that the cases listed are significant and provides unsourced analysis of the state of the law. Several of the sections lack citations and make arguments, rather than describe what RSes say about this topic. We should not allow an article that draws legal conclusions to remain in mainspace without adequate sourcing; this would be uncontroversial if the article had MEDRS issues and the standard should be the same when we have legal information on wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The headnotes in the third series of the Federal Reporter (which is what "F.3d" means) are an independent secondary source. Most cases are not reported, and a case would not be reported in a series of law reports unless it was believed to have precedent value (and is therefore "significant"). In any event, the cases of Kelly and Perfect 10 are discussed in treatises and periodical articles on the subject, which is not surprising since they are Ninth Circuit decisions on the point (and, indeed, they are independently notable).
    And you can add the Ticketmaster and Shetland Times cases to that as well, based on sources in Google Books, such as [31] and numerous other sources that are returned by a search for "Shetland Times Ltd. v. Wills"+hyperlinks. I should also point out that a lack of citations is not the same thing as OR.
    The standard of MEDRS should not be applied to law, because law is not an experimental science, legal sources bear no resemblence to medical sources either in their content or their correct use, and it would be pseudolaw to apply the methodolgy of medical science to law. James500 (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument is not that law is a science or analogous to it, but that we shouldn't present legal information to people based on an editor's opinion or analysis of case law, which is how the article is currently written. I think this article needs to be fundamentally rewritten. I also am not arguing that lack of citation implies OR, but this article is clearly written in an essay-like, argumentative style, and the fact that there are no citations in significant parts of the articles compounds the problem. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding precedential value, that is decided by the court issuing the opinion, not the reporter. I don't think headnotes alone are sufficient to establish that a particular case is significant, since every published case gets them, and not every published case represents a significant legal development. For example, in New York, every appellate decision is published and has precedential value, even if it's a short, unsigned memorandum. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "in New York, every appellate decision is published". Published by whom? A law report is not the same thing as an official transcript. I can tell you for certain that in England, not all appellate decisions are reported, and the reporter decides which cases to report based on his opinion of their value, not the court. Similarly in England, the headnote tells you what the reporter thinks the ratio decidendi of the case is. James500 (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're published by both the official reporter (the Law Reporting Bureau [LRB]) and by West in their proprietary law reports. The LRB writes the headnotes as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In New York, only selected trial court opinions get reported, but all Appellate Division opinions are reported. Some states and the federal appellate courts are like the UK, where not all appellate decisions are reported. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Voorts: Leaving aside whether the present state of the article is satisfactory (and I was already prepared to accept that it is less than optimal), draftification is not likely to result in improvements, since most drafts are invariably abandoned, because most editors won't edit in the draftspace. How about cutting the article down to a properly referenced "stub" without any content that might potentially violate NOT, so that it can be rebuilt and re-expanded in the mainspace? I can do that for you now if you want. James500 (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made a start on removing the disputed material. For the avoidance of doubt, I will not attempt to improve a page that has been draftified after an AfD, because there is no satisfactory procedure for moving such pages back to the mainspace. James500 (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the process is that any editor in good standing can move it back to mainspace when it's ready, or, if one wants to be cautious, it can be sent through AfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say there was no procedure, I said that I find the procedure to be so completely unsatisfactory that I will not participate in it. WP:ATD-I says "incubation must not be used as a backdoor to deletion". So, if this page is moved to the draftspace, I must ask who is going to improve it and move it back to the mainspace (because it will not be me)? Is anyone actually promising that they will personally improve the article and eventually move it back to the mainspace? James500 (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is required to promise to commit to improve the article in draft space, just as nobody is required to commit to improve the article if it is kept. If this article is moved to draftspace the draft should be marked with {{Promising draft}} and WT:LAW should be notified. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify it's clear this article has way too much WP:SYNTH to remain, and in addition is frankly, too technical. We should avoid trying to provide legal advice on Wikipedia. This article should probably focus way less on the case law and a lot more on any news media coverage of the subject (I suspect there have been a lot of reporters and think tanks that have probably explored this). Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should focus more on academic coverage in law reviews/journals, rather than media coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The body of case law is the subject. The academic coverage in law reviews is coverage of that body of case law. The problem is not the discussion of cases that are precedents. There may, however, be a problem with what sources that discussion is referenced to, and whether the sources support the claims in that discussion. James500 (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist due to an even split between keep and draft
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:25, 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 List of radio stations in Pennsylvania. Liz Read! Talk! 17:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WCSD-LP[edit]

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

Not many articles have been attempted to be prodded three times; in that sense alone, this AfD is long overdue. The article itself is a remnant of the looser standards in this topic area in the 2000s, but according to the talk page there was a failed prod that was followed by an A7 speedy deletion in 2007. It was recreated in 2009; a 2010 prod tagging was contested because of the prior article. (The contesting rationale notes that at the time, licensed radio stations are generally held to be notable, but with the caveat that consensus can change. In this topic area, that happened with this 2021 RfC; we now require significant coverage and cannot source solely to FCC records and other databases.) I just had to procedurally contest a third prod because of the prior prods. I had been considering a redirect to the list of radio stations in Pennsylvania as an alternative to deletion, and I still think that is the best course of action (I do not support retaining the article as it is), but the triple-prod means this is as much a procedural nomination as anything else. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:24, 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 speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela E. Swett[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF. Notability is a bit shaky here. I found a review of her work at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03071020600906925, but I doubt it that is enough, I am really more inclined to combine this and several other things to establish the notability of this professor though, if anyone can help. Her Dean-ship doesn’t count, Joukowsky Family Dissertation Award does not appear to be a notable one, etc. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:18, 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 Cotabato City#Education. ✗plicit 13:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Vicente Academy[edit]

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

Notability is in question. Could not find reliable sources that sufficiently cover this school. Sanglahi86 (talk) 09:03, 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. The Keep arguments, while thoroughly researched, do not address the P&G-based issues raised by the Delete views. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critique of Impure Reason[edit]

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

Fails WP:BOOK, only 5 citations in google scholar, none of which are reviews and 3 of which are by the author himself. Appears to be a vanity page. Psychastes (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: All I can find is a few citations and a mention in a bibliography of work on Kant. The best is this which mainly focuses on another of Bartlett's books and notes "This is not my field and I haven’t tried to tackle the book, but have exchanged ideas with Steven about promoting it. You see, he has had an extremely difficult time trying to find anyone to review the book." Shapeyness (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find any reviews of the book besides user reviews and a few brief mentions here and there. As it stands, it appears the book is not adequately covered from independent pubs failing WP:BOOKCRIT. X (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. As a graduate student in philosophy, I hope Wikipedia will keep this article. It is of great value to me and my seminar group members. This philosopher's book is important. It is very long and complex, so this well-researched article is very useful. It can benefit a lot of students.
50.78.191.225 (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For these reasons:
  1. The notability of the book has been confirmed by world-famous philosophers, including: (a) Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker [32], one of Germany's leading philosophers of science and physicist, who contributed the book's strongly endorsing Foreword; (b) renowned American philosopher Nicholas Rescher, who praised the book: "I admire its range of philosophical vision"; and (c) celebrated German philosopher Gerhard Preyer [33], who commended the book as "an impressive, bold, and ambitious work. Careful scholarship is balanced by original analyses".
  2. As Brian Martin mentioned, it is difficult to find book reviewers willing to review a 900-page book. However, Wikipedia's standards for a book's notability admit exceptions. One of these is: A book that "is included in Project Gutenberg or an analogous project does not need to meet threshold standards" (Wikipedia:Notability (books)). The book was peer reviewed and included in the University of Pittsburgh's PhilSci-Archive [34], which offers "a stable, openly accessible repository in which scholarly articles and monographs may find a permanent home," analogous to Project Gutenberg.
  3. The book is not a vanity publication. By the author's choice, the book was published as a benefit to the public at cost by a nonprofit publisher to make the nearly 900-page printed edition of the book affordable [35]. The book is also made freely available as an eBook through several archives, including PhilPapers, where since the book's publication 3 years ago, more than 2,500 copies have been downloaded [36].
  4. Since the book's Wikipedia article was posted 12/2021, the article has had more than 5,800 pageviews, indicating the article's utility to Wikipedia users.
  5. The article documents the evolution of the book over the course of previous publications by Bartlett spanning a period of more than 50 years. This information is found nowhere else and is valuable to professionals in philosophy.
  6. Further supporting the book's notability, major research libraries in the U.S. and Europe have acquired copies of the printed edition, including Harvard, Wesleyan, Fordham, University of Illinois, Northwestern, Stanford, University of Washington, Utrecht University, Leipzig University, and University of Paris [37].
  7. A translation into Spanish of the book's Introduction has been published, indicating growing international recognition of the book's importance [38].
Toh59 (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe any of these points address the requirements of NBOOK. (Toh59, you might find it helpful to read WP:ATA.)
  1. The quoted endorsements are not, as far as I can work out, from reviews. These opinions need to be published somewhere (not as WP:UGC) to "count" here.
  2. It is not typically hard to find reviewers for academic monographs, since relevant academic journals often review them as a matter of course. Also, the threshold standards that are waived for Project Gutenberg books have to do with requirements like "it has an ISBN", not the notability standards we discuss here. The inclusion in PhilSci-Archive is not relevant to notability.
  3. This has nothing to do with wiki-notability, i.e., coverage in secondary sources.
  4. This has nothing to do with wiki-notability, i.e., coverage in secondary sources.
  5. This has nothing to do with wiki-notability, i.e., coverage in secondary sources.
  6. Being collected by libraries is a threshold standard (i.e., if it wasn't collected by libraries, we'd be much more confident it was not notable), but not a notability indicator in itself.
  7. Being translated is not direct proof of notability, though it is usually the sort of thing that results in the generation of reviews (which are proof of notability)
Despite the poor argument above, I am open to the idea that this book may be notable. I have not done a search myself for sources, and there may be reviews in paywalled academic journals.
More intriguingly, the IP editor's mention of a "seminar group" suggests that this book might satisfy NBOOK#4, The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs. Toh59, 50.78.191.225, if you are able to provide syllabi or course listings of classes at multiple schools which have used this book, that would provide a rationale to keep the article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked OpenSyllabus and there are two books listed there with this title, but they're by other authors, so it's not this book. Psychastes (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The limitation insisted on here, that a book's endorsements must come solely and exclusively from reviews, is unreasonably restrictive. When a published book has a Foreword or Introduction written by a world-famous scientist or philosopher, as in the case of C. F. von Weizsäcker, by industry-wide standards this constitutes a major endorsement of a book. Secondly, a book's commendations that are published as an integral part of a book, for example, on the book's cover, back cover, or inside pages, qualify by those same standards as recognized endorsements of a book. Von Weizsäcker's very strongly commending Foreword, along with the commendations made by celebrated philosophers Nicholas Rescher and Gerhard Preyer, are all recognized without question as endorsements of the book.
    1. You wrote, "These opinions need to be published somewhere (not as WP:UGC) to "count" here." User-generated content as understood by Wikipedia means "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated." The endorsements listed under (1) are by no means "user-generated": they do not comprise content from websites, but are, as required, published endorsements (in both the printed and the eBook editions). They were clearly not generated by Bartlett or content from websites, but were contributed by widely recognized scholars. To verify these published non-user-generated, endorsements, a copy of the published book containing von Weizsäcker's Foreword can be downloaded here [[39]], and a copy of commendations published as the book's back cover is available from [[40]], p. 849.
    2. The threshold standards that are waived for Project Gutenberg books – like possessing an ISBN (the book possesses ISBN 978-0-578-88646-6) – can justifiably be said to apply to the book in question since the objectives of the PhilSci-Archive are analogous to PG's. Since the threshold standards do not apply to PG books, they would not apply to Bartlett's book in the PhilSci-Archive as an analogous repository.
  2. This is simply not the case when it comes to 900-page books, as recognized by Brian Martin, and attested to by Bartlett himself: "to interest philosophy journal editors to review such a long book can be challenging. When the author asked the world-renowned Review of Metaphysics to consider reviewing the printed edition of Critique of Impure Reason, the editor responded by saying that it would not be possible to find a reviewer willing to read and review such a long book. If published for the first time today, Kant’s own Critique of Pure Reason would have a hard time finding willing reviewers" [[41]], p. 17.
  3. Was not intended as a response to wiki-notability, but as evidence that the book is not a "vanity publication." It was published for the benefit of the public, with no financial benefit to the publisher or author. The eBook edition alone shows that, especially for a book with this large number of pages, it has a significant audience. Wikipedia's commitment to serving the public good and to provide a useful educational resource is relevant.
  4. Has the same intent as 3.
  5. Has the same intent as 3.
  6. I agree, this meets an additional threshold standard, one that we ought not to ignore, especially since all of the universities that have added the book to their collections are known as major research institutions (and are not, for example, small public libraries).
  7. Educators and scholars would definitely disagree with this claim: Being translated is a sign that a work is recognized as sufficiently notable and important to merit translation. Again, (2) applies here: Reviewers of extremely long technical works, even when translated, can be very hard to find.
Toh59 (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP: An additional and central reason, not previously mentioned in this discussion:
Much of Bartlett's notability is due to his many publications. Of his publications, the massive Critique of Impure Reason has been recognized as the culmination of Bartlett's work: "a great book, the fruit of a lifetime of research" in the words of American philosopher Martin X. Moleski [[42]], p. 849. The present article documents the importance of the book as the end-result of Bartlett's research over a period of more than 50 years. The importance, complexity, and length of this major work warrant and call for this separate article. Toh59 (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion (delete) is unchanged by Toh59's rebuttals, which continue to misunderstand wiki-notability and WP:NBOOK. Note that Toh59 already provided a bolded keep !vote before the relisting, so the above should not be counted a second time.
(To engage a bit with Toh59's arguments: The forewords etc are indeed published but they are not independent: for a source to show notability it must be all three of wp:reliable, wp:independent, and wp:sigcov. Moreover, we don't actually care what people say, just that people have said a lot of things, so praise of the book is not relevant if it isn't from a review or other form of reliable, independent sigcov. The quote from Martin X. Moleski is also from within the book itself, and not independent. Toh59, it seems like you are putting your energy in the wrong places: if you can provide 2 book reviews or proof that 2 different schools have taught this book, the article can be kept.)
As far as I can work out, zero sources have provided for notability, and the investigation of NBOOK#4 was also a bust. There is no policy-based rationale for a keep. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You state, apparently without misgiving, the following policy: "we don't actually care what people say, just that people have said a lot of things, so praise of the book is not relevant if it isn't from a review or other form of reliable, independent sigcov." If what you state here is a guiding principle in Wikipedia, then this reduces a book's notability to a simple standard of how many heads we can count who are talking about a book, and dismisses whether a book has been endorsed in its Foreword by a physicist and philosopher with a reputation in same ball club as a Heisenberg, Jauch, Bohr, or Einstein. The counting policy would in this case give more weight and credibility to head-counting regardless of qualification, while dismissing the judgment of those best qualified to form an opinion.
WP:NBOOK advocates a rational policy: "The criteria provided by this guideline are rough criteria. They are not exhaustive. Accordingly, a book may be notable, and merit an article, for reasons not particularized in this or any other notability guideline….
Regarding academic and technical books, which the book under discussion clearly is, Wikipedia's policy is also reasonable: "Academic and technical books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice. Again, common sense should prevail.
—It is just this – common sense – that is needed in the exclusionist push for the article's deletion. For academic books, the WP:NBOOK policy goes on to state: "In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, … whether one or more translations of the book have been published…." –And, as has been pointed out, since Bartlett's book appeared in 2021, one translation has already been published.
Given the weight placed on reviews, you've also stated: "It is not typically hard to find reviewers for academic monographs, since relevant academic journals often review them as a matter of course." As Brian Martin and Bartlett have both noted, what you've said is simply untrue: Some disciplines offer many outlets for books to be reviewed. A book in physics, for example, has many more review opportunities than a book in philosophy.
Since you want quantitative data, here is a time-consuming test that I've made, and hope you are open-minded and willing to make it yourself: I've searched for reviews of any books in philosophy, books that meet the following criteria: (1) published within the same time-frame as Bartlett's Critique of Impure Reason (i.e., since the Fall of 2021), (2) containing a minimum of 800 pages, and (3) representing new work by a single author -- that is, excluding reprinted editions of long classical works and edited collections of papers by multiple authors.
I was not able to find a single work that meets these criteria by having been reviewed at least once. If this is indeed a fact about reality, then to require of Bartlett's book that it meet a standard that is simply not met by any comparable book in the real world, is to impose an unrealistic and unreasonable demand.
The article that is facing cancellation has already served more than 5,800 readers (how, we of course cannot know), an average of more than 4 pageviews a day. For a book whose title is far from sexy, but evidently "intellectual and technical," we may reasonably conjecture that the article possesses some interest or some value to a surprising number of people. Since the information found in the article is to be found nowhere else, bringing together in a single documented discussion of Bartlett's work over a 50-year period, pressing the delete button ends this. What is the public benefit served by deleting it, weighed against the potential value to Wikipedia users of keeping it? Toh59 (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure if the article we have is a genuine work of WP:OR or just a result of a newbie editor not fully understanding how citation works on wikipedia, but this article is not a neutral summary of the book and its reception or academic legacy - all of the citations that aren't to the book aren't actually to sources that directly support the information in the article. For example, in the background section, we have Bartlett's doctoral dissertation A Relativistic Theory of Phenomenological Constitution: A Self-referential, Transcendental Approach to Conceptual Pathology. This work presents within a phenomenological framework a logically compelling method that makes it possible to identify and correct conceptual transgressions that are self-undermining. This is the first work in which Bartlett describes the project of a "critique of impure reason." There are two footnotes here - both to the dissertation itself. There is no secondary source linking the dissertation to the book that is the subject of the article; the article isn't even citing Critique of Impuree Reason itself for the idea that this book grew out of these sources. Much of the rest of the article is only sourced to the book itself, and has strongly non-npov phrases like the book proposes a new and revisionary philosophical understanding. The entire last section appears to be back-cover blurbs and other marketing material - these are not acceptable for wikipedia articles on books.
All of this is to say that even if the book is found to be notable, I think we're looking at a WP:TNT delete. But is it a notable book? Well... half of the citations to the book are by the author himself. I found a review that looked promising - but it's also by the author. It seems like there has been a concerted but ineffective effort by this scholar to promote his book. I'm not saying our article is one such attempt... but I'm not not saying that either. Delete. -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asilvering, you wrote: "the article isn't even citing Critique of Impure Reason itself for the idea that this book grew out of these sources."
You'll find a detailed description of the direct evolution of the book from Bartlett's doctoral dissertation on the first two pages of the book's Preface (pp. xxix-xxx). Toh59 (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Trachtenberg[edit]

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

This does not appear to be a notable person. The article lists he is a history professor and that he appeared before a Congressional committee (the cited source for the latter is about a completely different person and does not mention him at all, so I am not sure this is correct). He is not a public figure, not well known, nor an especially prominent scholar. SantasLittleHelper123 (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not loving that this nomination is the first edit of a brand new account, because that definitely doesn't smack of being an incredibly unusual first edit by anyone actually new to this platform - as opposed to, say, the correction of a minor typo. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has the nominator done a WP:BEFORE search? Because that would also be remarkable. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One way or another, I'm going to oppose based on the in-depth coverage of this scholar's views since as least as far back as 2018, providing a clear WP:SUSTAINED and WP:GNG case (outside of WP:NACADEMIC). Indeed, the man appears to have been getting in notable scuffles with power and driving people up the wall for absolutely years. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry yes it is my first post. I am in this field (well history) and saw a link to the page. Perhaps we can focus the discussion on the merits of arguments rather than number of edits.
In terms of academic influence, look at Google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=0t_itmQAAAAJ&hl=e
A standard metric is an h index equal to number of years since Phd: his is 4 (see cited by tab)!! He only has 115 cites which would not get tenure at an R1 research university.
Now for the points you raise. How does getting into scuffles with power make someone notable? The article you link to simply debunks his work. And the other article is a single mention in Al-Jeezera. Several dozen scholars get far more media attention on this.
If there are more notable aspects related to this entry, please do add them. But I am not seeing them. SantasLittleHelper123 (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject's academic credentials are only the main concern if WP:NACADEMIC is the metric by which we are measuring it. If the metric is WP:GNG, all forms of WP:SUSTAINED, in-depth coverage in RS contribute. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I guess you mean he is a public figure? I do a Google news source and omitting academic or local mentions I do not see much. In Google news I see two mentions in ten years to major media (your article and a la times one). How is this sustained coverage? SantasLittleHelper123 (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and History. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The case for WP:PROF#C5 (named chair) is a little unclear because he received the chair as an associate professor and was only promoted to full professor very recently [43]. Nevertheless he has a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR through many published reviews of his books. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The central measure of notability in academics is citations, and the totals I mentioned are in no way notable. Why is a book review notable (and how many are you referring to?). His books are almost exclusively read by academics so I think think that is the criteria the subject should be judged by. Notable historians and social scientists have hundreds of thousands of votes per book. SantasLittleHelper123 (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That should be "cites" not "votes" in .y last sentence. SantasLittleHelper123 (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Citation counts have some use in STEM fields whose practitioners generally published articles in journals and cite each others' papers. They work much less well in the humanities, where the major publications are books and the sign of recognition of a book is not its citations but its reviews. Some books are well cited despite that, but it is not usually a good indicator for notability. More, reviews fit much better into Wikipedia's notability ecosystem than citation. A review is an independent, reliably-published source with in-depth coverage of the subject's contributions. We now have 13 of these sources in the article. WP:GNG requires only two. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All the reviews referenced on the page are academic book reviews. A book is itself considered notable for 2-3 reviews in reliable sources. Here we that and more (academic ones) for three books - so that's three notable works. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From a purely practical perspective, an entire "scholarly views" section could almost certainly be built out just based on these book reviews alone. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops. Oh yeah! Totally missed the sheer volume of reviews there on the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to comment on David Eppstein's note about the timing of the named chair and full professor: in my experience (at least in the humanities; his might be the same or different) sometimes people get a major award or an offer from a university that would be a step up, and the counter-offer from the university to keep someone who was just recognized as a star is promotion, but this has to go through university systems incuding external review and might take a year or more, so the one thing a university can do is offer a named chair immediately to show their dedication while waiting for the system to play out. I know of a case of a composer at a good college, but not primarily known for music, who won one of the highest prizes for composition while she was an assistant professor, who was promoted over the course of three years to full professor, but was given a named chair immediately as a sort of "we'll keep our word" gesture to retain her. In any case, it still signals notability for WP cases. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point. (I have also seen cases where the timing was the opposite: it was actually faster to hire someone, despite that process usually being slow at high levels, than to grind through the bureaucracy needed to approve the named chair.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tenured to a named chair and significant reviews passing WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creepTalk 20:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: With the reviews added, this is a pretty clear WP:NAUTHOR pass regardless of whether or not the chair he holds qualifies for WP:NPROF#5. Curbon7 (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Book reviews are not a central metric for academic books. If you do not like citations, then you would either look at reviews in important outlets or more so book prizes (at most two of the reviews listed could possibly be considered important outlets). All that as an aside, five or fewer reviews per book would not even stand out in the subject's own department. At a minimum mid-double digits would be considered notable. SantasLittleHelper123 (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They literally are. These aren't reviews written by a bookworm on Goodreads, these are academic reviews in published journals. The article currently lists 13 across 3 books. Curbon7 (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- WP:PROF#C5 -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the nomination statement that the source about the congressional hearings "does not mention him at all" is false. It mentions him twice. The mention is in the subscriber-only part, not the free-to-the-public part of the source, but that should be irrelevant. Unfortunately both mentions are brief and in passing, so I don't think that source counts for much. It didn't source what it was used for here (a description of a political position taken by the subject) and for that reason I removed it. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of PNWR locomotives[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST - I cannot find any independent reliable sources talking about this set of rolling stock as a group. The current sources are all self-published and of questionable reliability. A simplified, well-sourced table at Portland and Western Railroad that simply lists the quantity of each locomotive class would be more appropriate. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:45, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mihaaru Awards[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The topic is an award given by a local newspaper. The contents is a list of recipients, and the sourcing is just about recipients of it. Nothing approaching even 1/4 of GNG coverage of the topic. North8000 (talk) 13:02, 28 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! 06:40, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2015 Pan and Parapan American Games broadcasters[edit]

List of 2015 Pan and Parapan American Games broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to nobody but the small minority of ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are announcements and does not help to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:30, 28 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! 06:39, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Mellor[edit]

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

Unref BLP; I couldn't find sources to establish she can meet WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 28 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! 06:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails NACTOR and GNG. –Davey2010Talk 15:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist–Leninist Centre in Mexico[edit]

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

Failure of WP:ORG; the article subject is a small, non-notable organisation. The article has been unsourced for over a decade. I could not find any reliable sources in English, and a translation of the name to Spanish yielded no results either. Yue🌙 04:45, 28 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, 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 merge‎ to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. I'm not seeing any clear SIGCOV; all sources presented have been rebutted as insufficient. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Woods[edit]

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

Non-notable character, incredibly minor side character who appears as in three episodes. Fails WP:NCHARACTER and GNG Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 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 merge‎ to SM Supermalls#Locations in a reduced state. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of SM Supermalls[edit]

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

Article is pretty much an apparent violation of NOTDIRECTORY, containing nothing more than a laundry list of SM Supermalls and their branches. If people really needed a directory, it can easily be found on the company's own website. The article already needed a massive clean-up by removing a lot of those supposed proposed and future malls without verifiable and independent sources.

Not proposing yet to remove the other notable SM Supermalls that have own separate articles (such as SM North EDSA, Megamall, Mall of Asia, etc). GrayFullbuster (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add, a large chunk (if not majority of the sources) are from the corporation SM Prime Holdings itself, not necessarily independent. If not delete, I at least propose that it be re-directed back to the main SM Supermalls article. GrayFullbuster (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge per Lenticel. Suggested columns to retain: number (if feasible), name, location, and opening date. The descriptions are best transferred to the malls' articles themselves (if properly-sourced with non-independent sources). Remove images altogether, per recent precedences in lists like at Philippine highway network (discourage gallery-like content), and also to alleviate no-Freedom of Panorama violations on Commons (as there is little need to share more images on Commons if there is no "Image" column on the first place). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:43, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lok Sabha members from the Aam Aadmi Party[edit]

List of Lok Sabha members from the Aam Aadmi Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY, this is a relatively new and regional political party that has never had a Lok Sabha member outside the state of Punjab. Even the larger, national and older mainstream political parties like the Indian National Congress, the Bharatiya Janata Party, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) don't have the list of their Lok Sabha members here. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 05:32, 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 no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Information Science and Technology "St. Paul The Apostle"[edit]

University of Information Science and Technology "St. Paul The Apostle" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article states they have 375 students, which is not a university. Many of the claims look too much, and none are verified. From their own web page the number of faculty is very small. Making a Beowulf cluster is not notable. More significant coverage is needed, this fails almost everything. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment State universities and colleges tend to be notable, although this is a comparatively minor vocational one. It appears reasonably likely that WP:SOURCESEXIST, but searching in Cyrillic is difficult for many of us. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. Universities are normally notable, although even by North Macedonian standards this one appears to be quite small (the other public universities in North Macedonia for which we have articles each have more than 10 times as many students as this one). Yes, searching in Macedonian is difficult for us here, but the article in the Macedonian Wikipedia isn't that much better. At worst, though, redirect to List of universities in North Macedonia rather than deleting this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have generally kept universities founded by statute. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on what policy? The Banner talk 18:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Seconding the policy question. Also, as I stated in the original nomination, I could not verify the claims -- maybe someone else can. For instance, I am doubtful about all the claimed collaborations with universities many times their size, the 14 BA & MA degrees, the ranking. I could not verify any of these. It is easy to write on a web page, but normally we look for verifiability, WP:N. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Based on WP:CONSENSUS over many AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I am asking for a policy. Not for a circular reasoning. The Banner talk 23:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Yup, that policy would be WP:CONSENSUS! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I am still asking for a policy that says specifically that we are keeping "universities founded by statute". WP:CONSENSUS does not state that. And saying that we keep universities because we kept universities in the past because we kept universities in the past etc. is a circular reasoning. Not based on any policy. The Banner talk 17:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the top level polytechnic of a nation that was founded by the national government is a notable act in itself. There are numerous US institutions with fewer undergraduates (Caltech) or even 1/10th of the total number of students (Deep Springs College) that are notable, so the size of the institution isn't a determining factor; the significance of the institution to a nation's identity is a glimpse at the importance to a people. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two points:
    Please check your numbers, you are way off. Caltech has close to 3 times (1023) the number of undergrads per year, to compare to the total number of 357 for both BS & MS, plus Caltech admitted 1440 grads. https://registrar.caltech.edu/records/enrollment-statistics
    You ignored the key point -- essentially nothing on this Wikipedia page is verifiable. The Deep Springs College page has 37 sources, plus stacks of other material that verifies notability.
    I politely request that you demonstrate their notability if you want to defend them. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral If we are to evaluate only based on the inserted references, then this fails every notability guideline, but if sources in foreign (local) language exist, and are promptly introduced, then things could change. I feel it's necessary that someone with proficiency in the local language performs some searches and shares the results. X (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed Ldm1954 (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of universities in North Macedonia until proper sourcing can be identified. JoelleJay (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no prejudice against recreation if sources become available. I conducted some searches in Macedonian but failed to locate significant secondary source coverage. Right now we are doing no service to our readers by having an article unsupported by sources making various dubious claims. AusLondonder (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Redirection to List of universities in North Macedonia is an excellent alternative to deletion. I'm on the fence as far as independent notability, leaning very very slightly on the keep side, essentially per the argument of Necrothesp. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply stating we have kept other articles is not an argument. AusLondonder (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish keep. I got some help from one of our students here with language. There's an interview with the vice-rector [46], which we probably can't use for facts, but which I think contributes to notability. Substantial piece in Makedonsko Sonce on a potential reorganization [47]. There's coverage in national newspapers related to a labor disagreement [48], and in context of national university organization [49] (for example, lots of stories of the latter type). Lots of coverage in Ohrid News, for example [50][51][52][53]. I found perfoming Google site-searches for "Универзитетот за информатички науки и технологии" to be helpful. Overall, I'm seeing enough consistent coverage over time for a reasonable notability case. As other editors have been saying, this is as one would expect for one of a small number of state universities. I am not impressed with the comparison with CalTech, but I think it might be helpful to compare with e.g. the University of Maine School of Law: a small technical school that is nonetheless of regional importance and wider interest, and that is appropriate for encyclopedic coverage. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to connect reputation to Caltech -- and Deep Springs, Harvey Mudd, or University of Main School of Law is a better analogy to what I meant as my point that size of institution in itself isn't a determinant of notability. Thanks for the better comparison. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging @ElKevbo and Sdkb: as regulars at WP:WikiProject Higher Education, their input could help build a consensus. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but my expertise is in US higher education. And with seemingly most or all of the available sources not being in my only language I'm afraid that I can't be very helpful here at all. If pressed, I would lean slightly toward keep on the strength of the evidence that you cited in your own "weakish keep" !vote. But if there aren't enough sources available for an article to be written by volunteers in English Wikipedia then I would certainly understand a "delete" result. ElKevbo (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Found this via ping above) Keep per Russ Woodroofe (trusting the validity of the sources, as I don't speak Macedonian). Sdkb talk 14:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023#April. Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Khyber bombing[edit]

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

All the sources provided are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. Whilst it may be terrorism, the sources do not definitively establish that. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023, where it's already mentioned. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or merge selectively) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023#April. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:06, 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) 04:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pelangi Hotel (Bintan)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 08:56, 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) 10:13, 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) 13:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aymatth2 Because they are really not? I'm very skeptical of these assesment that they are "notable" per WP:CORP. Hotels rarely fullfil it. I can see if its in Bali or Jakarta but Bintan?Nyanardsan (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hotels like these are often notable. A typical resort hotel is a large structure or structures covering a large area. It may have interesting architecture. Construction is expensive and messy. It employs a lot of people. Events are held at it. Journalists stay there. It changes ownership. Any or all of these aspects may be discussed in some depth. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been to Bintan and it's high end, caters to wealthy businessmen from Singapore looking for a quick getaway in particular. Economically it's closer tied to Singapore than Indonesia and you'll find these resorts feature in the top southeast Asian magazines. It is possible that some like this might not have the sources we need online though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't one of the resort hotels, and seems to be a lesser notable one inland. Can't find adequate coverage of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:53, 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) 04:12, 28 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) 05:35, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of Shan states[edit]

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

Article is a collection of 77 unsourced genealogies, with four footnotes. There is probably a notable list for this topic, but in its current state, WP:TNT is needed to make room; if all the unsourced genealogy material was removed, there would a a title and categories. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site.  // Timothy :: talk  13:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Myanmar. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Calling this a genealogy would be the same as calling List of French monarchs a genealogy; technically not incorrect but a bit silly as it is a list of rulers. Certainly passes WP:NLIST; for instance, in the appendix of this book, there is a list of the rulers of about 35 of these states from 1887 to 1959. It seems the majority of the present article is derived from WorldStatesman [54], which is of course deprecated. WP:TNT is an option that is on the table. Curbon7 (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: I don't know if it's past the WP:TNT tipping point yet. It's likely that much of the content could be sourced from the generic references. Don't think the material is necessarily controversial enough to mandate WP:INLINE citations. Of course, it's also likely that WorldStatesman is the true source, hence the weak keep. I don't personally have much time to edit this week, but I could go through the book Curbon listed or find other books I do have on Shan states and try to inline cite some the week after that. But doesn't seem unrecoverable and full of misinformation just because of a lack of inline citations. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 03:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Here are some recent (last couple of weeks) examples of why TNT is needed: [55], [56], [57]. None of this is sourced, no one can tell if these edits are correct or not. The article is too far gone to expect anyone to fix it.  // Timothy :: talk  08:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Good selections- as far as I can tell it isn't merely even changes in romanizations/inconsistent dating between chronicles. Changing my vote to agree on TNT grounds. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 17:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essentially no citations. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 28 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) 05:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looked for and could not find any better sources than the one this article was copy-pasted from,[58] although another person seems to have the same text on their website.[59] Google any two random names and there are no results. These facts lack provenance. The sources from a hundred years ago have not been digitized, so few of the data points can be verified. WP:TNT may leave a crater that isn't replaced for a great long while but there's no clear path toward improving the article. Wizmut (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These lists are also on their main pages. See Kengcheng, Möng Mao, and Mongnai State, for example. No need to keep the same lists on this page.
About sources, I can provide some; however, the current lists need to be rechecked:
- Hsenwi: [60] (Thai)
- Kengcheng: Chronicles of Chiang Khaeng A Tai Lü Principality of the Upper Mekong. Cannot find a full version online.
- Kengtung: is well-sourced.
- Möng Mao: [61] [62] (Thai)
- Hsenwi, Mongyang State, Chiang Hung: [63] (Chinese)
- Möng Mao, Mongkawng, Wanmaw State: [64]
- Mongyawng State: [65] (Thai) transcribed from the original text
- Chiang Hung: [66] (Thai) สี่ขีด (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 11:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MobiBLU DAH-1500i[edit]

MobiBLU DAH-1500i (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable – many MP3 players that have been reviewed by "big" magazine websites like CNET do not (and should not) have their own articles. The articles nominated just contain technical specification of the product (or products, if you consider them to be separate).

The only reason for notability seems to be the claim that this is the "world's smallest" MP3 player, but the citation for that goes to a PCMag page which says "... billed as the "world's smallest" digital audio player, and we're pretty sure that's true" which is not any form of proof of the claim. Furthermore, "billed" seems to imply that these are the words of the manufacturer only, and indeed I have not been able to find any sort of official confirmation of the claim. AlexGallon (talk) 21:51, 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! 22:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz – I left a message over at your talk page related to this nomination. AlexGallon (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1, 2, 3, 4 A gadget that was widely reviewed at the time of its release from major pubs and had lasting coverage. Tech products's notability largely depends on reviews. Not every MP3 players in the market get reviewed from big tech pubs. The only reason for notability seems to be the claim that this is the "world's smallest" MP3 player, but the citation for that goes to a PCMag page which says "... billed as the "world's smallest" digital audio player, and we're pretty sure that's true" which is not any form of proof of the claim. Here's a more appropriate source that independently states the claim: The bite-size MobiBLU DAH-1500i is the smallest, most impressively full-featured Flash player we've seen yet. - PCMag UK, Jun 27, 2018. X (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of thousands of mp3 players. Refs don't say anything, they're mundane reviews. Desertarun (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One that has been independently called the world's smallest MP3 player. Notable lasting coverage exists for this particular player, outside typical routine coverage. X (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 28 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) 05:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Might be worth keeping if it was somehow still the world's smallest personal audio device (it's not 2005 anymore), but it probably wasn't the smallest for very long, as an Apple product may have been tinier in 2009.[67] Googling around, nobody keeps track of the smallest device anymore, so it's not a notable topic after all. Lots of products get released every year and they all get reviewed, then replaced and thrown away. They are not notable.[68][69] The lasting coverage mentioned earlier contains no coverage.[70] Wizmut (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comment Okmrman (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Animonsta Studios#Filmography. Owen× ☎ 13:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Power Sphera Universe media[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. This is basically a catalog of a particular company's products. AFD nomination per no GNG sourcing of the topic per se and numerous wp:not issues. North8000 (talk) 22:01, 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! 23:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Animonsta Studios#Filmography: Smells like fancruft/listcruft, and fails NLIST, nothing showing this has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. Found promo, listings, nothing from independent sources showing this meets NLIST. I thought about CLN, but don't think the few entries here need a second separate navigation list from Animonsta Studios#Filmography. Power Sphera Universe does not exist, and it doesn't appear there is WP:SIRS for the subject.  // Timothy :: talk  06:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A notable franchise There are links to articles about the notable films and television shows in it. Perfectly valid navigational and information list. This format is more useful than just the template or a category, since it list how many episodes there were, the date of its original run, and the names of key people involved. Dream Focus 18:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Animonsta Studios#Filmography. Lorstaking (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Deleting rather than redirecting as there are no RS presented that indicate "gating" is a common term for detention in any area. No prejudice against someone creating the redirect if sources are found. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gating (punishment)[edit]

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

seems to be just a dictionary definition Chidgk1 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2008-08 (closed as ✓ keep)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see @Stifle and @S Marshall who debated in 2008 are still active - like to comment guys? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So's @Hobit. We might all be a smidge older now.—S Marshall T/C 09:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's now, by my reckoning, 18 years sitting around as an unsourced stub. As I said when I nominated it 16 years ago, delete. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to School discipline#Detention. Lacks a historical perspective, but then so does the current sub-stub. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Kennedys Law. Daniel (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gates and Partners[edit]

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

Unclear that notability has been established. Beland (talk) 04:00, 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! 06:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All the available coverage falls well within WP:ORGTRIV. I was not able to find anything more substantial. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Juest wanted to note, I'm alright with redirect, though I'm not so sure the other company is notable either. Don't really think there's anything to merge. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect into Kennedys Law into which Gates was dissolved. Why wasn't this suggested upfront? gidonb (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:02, 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Kennedys Law: Trivia PR coverage doesn't meet WP:NCORP, appropriate to merge to parent company even though sources in Kennedys Law aren't really independent Robertjamal12 ~🔔 09:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article there are many articles about it being purchased by Kennedys and its cases prior to the purchase [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]. Also covered in multiple legal books including the European Legal 500 until its merger and Chambers UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfloving (talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kennedys Law, also agree, don't think the sourcing for the redirect target meets NCORP either but that isn't the topic at AfD. HighKing++ 12:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. / leaning keep. The nomination was strong but garnered insufficient support, while the overall consensus leaned towards not deleting the article, including alternatives. Unfortunately, the third relist did not attract the neccesary input demonstrate a clearer consensus. (non-admin closure)

For further clarity, it should be pointed out that it is unnecessaryto wait another seven days for each relist to expire. Per WP:RELIST, relisting should not be a substitute for a no consensus closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive discussion, and disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, but consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable. A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days. Further, the relisting editor should write a short explanation as to why it was deemed necessary. This did no occur. Likewise, repeatedly relisting discussions merely in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended. ——Serial Number 54129 10:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) ——Serial Number 54129 10:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French ship Gapeau (B284)[edit]

French ship Gapeau (B284) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only reliable source for this fishing ship / unarmed military transport ship is a massive 10-book encyclopedia of all German warships no matter how small or insignificant. The other source, netmarine.net, is more of a large hobby site / semi wiki than anything else ("Si vous souhaitez compléter ces pages par des récits, illustrations ou autres documents, écrivez nous."). Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, France, and Germany. Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have always kept commissioned naval vessels. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, we haven't, and is in any case not a reason to keep things. "We keep because we always keep" is ignoring things like Wp:CCC and the stricter standards we have for establishing notability instead of assuming some inherent notability across many topics. Fram (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You tried the exact same argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-316, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422 and the like, which ended in redirection, with the closing admin noting the particular weakness of your argument. Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you discount my argument because you disagree with precedent but then cite a closer's remarks (which did not refer to my argument specifically, incidentally) as some sort of precedent? You've got to laugh! But, other than those numbered vessels, which are all pretty much the same, and some static accommodation barges, would you like to cite the AfDs where commissioned military vessels were deleted. Just so we know. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have if they got more than routine coverage. A fishing vessel pressed into navy service isn't the HMS Ark Royal or USS Missouri, so it won't have that level of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Reading the article for 2 seconds shows that it was requisitioned for service as a military ship during World War II, so stating fishing ship / unarmed transport ship, is technically correct but is a misleading strawman. I'm not arguing for or against deletion because I don't know if there is a separate method for assessing the notability of ships, but that statement just irked me. Curbon7 (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant "unarmed military transport ship", otherwise my addition of "unarmed" would make little sense, but I agree that not including "military" was involuntarily misleading. I've added it now, I hope that's better? Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Much appreciated Curbon7 (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The vessel served with two navies and two commercial fishers. Although unarmed in French Navy service, she was definitely armed in Kriegsmarine service. If Netmarine is objected to, I can add from Janes All the World's Ships, which most definitely passes WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Lloyd's Register is also a reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • That Lloyd's mention is reliable, but it doesn't contribute to the topic's notability. See WP:SIGCOV. I'm familiar with Janes' usual entries, and while they're also reliable I'm not sure that will meet the SIGCOV bar either. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mjroots and longstanding practice. Kablammo (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Vorpostenboote in World War II. I'm not concerned with the scope of Gröner's work, but I am interested in its depth of coverage. From the article's content, I'm guessing it does check that WP:SIGCOV box (in addition to all the other points at WP:GNG). Unfortunately, that's only one source, and Lloyd's table doesn't reach that bar. If there's a typical entry in Jane's Fighting Ships, I'm guessing that wouldn't either. As a result, I think this topic can be covered in the main Vorpostenboote list, or if needed that list could be split. (Per GNG footnote 4: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.") Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:31, 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! 07:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable boat/fishing trawler/transport. Wasn't involved in any heroic anti-submarine battle or any notable rescue at sea that would garner coverage. What's used for coverage is routine ship registry listings, tracing the vessel's career until being scrapped. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Added a little more history from an additional source. - Davidships (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:23, 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. Slim participation, but the author appears to agree so not calling this Soft Star Mississippi 11:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian youth[edit]

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

The entire article is original research, specifically WP:SYNTH. There are many instances of stating opinions as facts (WP:VOICE), e.g., "The roots of current Russian youth culture can be traced back to ancient Russia, but more readily apparent signs of modern Russian youth culture are due to the reactionary influence because of both the Soviet Union's formation and its dissolution", and riddled with weasel words, e.g., "Some observers noted what they described as a "generational struggle" among Russians". Generally, these are not the basis for an article to be deleted when the article can be fixed or tagged, but the idea of the article itself is based on collating different sources to present a personal reflection, i.e., Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Pleas note that the sources cited mostly do not support claims being asserted, with the statement being more of a conjecture rather than an encyclopaedic one. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Delete it. I wouldn't care. I guess that the fact that I tried to write objectively and it came out subjectively shows how poorly done that the journalism I've read that inspired me to write the same is and so on. Lunavara (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD process is generally where editors debate. It is a good opportunity for you to defend your work and maybe change our minds. You can also fix the deficiencies noted by myself (an maybe other editors) and update us with a comment when you do that.
My nomination is not a unilateral decision, and I think you should care about it so you can improve your future work and learn more about policies that dictate how this place ticks. Please take it as a chance to learn, as you continue grow as editor, and also feel free to challenge it.
Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute for more information FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there was massive edit after the nom to try to fix the article (by deleting almost half of it) but I still think the article is beyond fixing. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Runyantown, Indiana[edit]

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

Apparently a short-lived 4th class post office in Mr. Runyan's store, the latter being the only thing approaching a substantial mention of the place. GHits are all clickbait, fed gazetteer listings, or Google's AI throwing out every Indiana history book in an attempt to offer something relevant. THe map location given is obviously wrong, but even the more likely spot a bit to the east has almost nothing there. Mangoe (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The USGS topo maps do show the name Runyantown at the site, with 3-4 buildings, as far back as 1938: [78], but that's all we have. Not notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see it as notable beyond the local area. Wikipedia is not a local history repository. But here is a description of the place [79].James.folsom (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Clube de Regatas do Flamengo noted players[edit]

List of Clube de Regatas do Flamengo noted players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicated content of List of Clube de Regatas do Flamengo players, which is more developed and properly referenced. Svartner (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Brazil, Football, and Lists of people. Svartner (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not needed, pure POV, an existing 'players' list already exists. GiantSnowman 17:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - How on Earth has this survived since 2008? The title is vague, and the article does nothing to clarify it. There appear to be many decent lists of all the players at this club, based on the factual information of their appearances. There's not even any point to this list, it's just a list that someone decided to jot down for no clear reason. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Duplacate fork which does not have a definitable criteria and fails to meet the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merger without tags‎ since Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit, Canada_convoy_protest#Lawsuits have similar arguments behind them. Note Freedom Convoy... is a redirect so not viable as a target. Editors can discuss the best target without a further relist. No case has been made for why the content cannot be retained as there aren't BLP or CV issues, just that it should not be a standalone. Star Mississippi 11:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zexi Li[edit]

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

Pretty clear WP:BLP1E as this person is only notable for post-event legalities regarding the Canada convoy protest. All sources in the article and found in a WP:BEFORE check are in regards to the protest. Subject has otherwise demonstrated a consistent pattern of low-profile activity, while the article has been repeatedly vandalized in attack-page style. Pinging @Bueller 007: who initially raised BLP1E concerns. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a redirect would be okay, if there's a thought that someone might be searching on the name of the litigant, but that's probably not needed. TJRC (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being okay with a redirect. This Google News link shows that Zexi Li has given numerous interviews to the media about the Canada convoy protest. This article calls her "spokesperson and the face of the lawsuit" against the convoy, so I think her name is a plausible search query. Several reasons from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for not deleting also apply such as "They have a potentially useful page history" (there is useful information about her activism about the Canada convoy that potentially could be merged) and they would "make the creation of duplicate articles less likely" (an article about a lawsuit's spokesperson is duplicate to an article about the lawsuit). Cunard (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have to disagree that there is a "useful page history." I'll reiterate that there is absolutely nothing that I would consider merging from this article, so preserving the page history is of zero importance to me. I strongly prefer hard deletion, at which point if people think "Zexi Li" is a plausible search term, a redirect can be created later. Any support for a redirect that I've expressed here should be considered weak. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GhostOfDanGurney on the page history. As I said above, although I don't object to the redirect, I see nothing worth merging, so there's no need to retain the page history, which is not potentially useful. TJRC (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second and fourth paragraphs of Zexi Li#Adult life would meet the due weight policy if merged to Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit. This is why I consider the content and history to be useful and worth preserving. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because although there is a consensus that this shouldn't be a standalone article, there are several different target articles suggested here. Can we narrow this down to one to Redirect or Merge to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I am responding to the relisting comment asking about narrowing this down to one redirect or merge target. I think the best redirect or merge target is Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit since Zexi Li is already mentioned there and merging content (the second and fourth paragraphs of Zexi Li#Adult life) there would comply with the due weight policy. Cunard (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that details on her whereabouts are relevant and I'm not sure how WP:DUE applies to it. Canada convoy protest is a far better sourced article than either Zexi Li or Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit; merging Zexi Li is wholly unneeded when Canada convoy protest already covers everything relevant; her specific whereabouts (paragraph two) is covered by the text "...on behalf of downtown Ottawa residents over continuous air horn and train horn noise." and her specific testimony (paragraph four) is not relevant when looked at in the context of the article (it's obvious and well-sourced that Ottawa residents experienced varying levels of distress during the event).
    This article should be deleted, with no merge or redirection. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zexi Li is the lead plaintiff of a class action lawsuit against the Canada convoy protest. The second and fourth paragraphs discuss her living in a high-rise building in Ottawa and her testimony about how she and other Ottawa residents were disrupted by the noise generated by the Canada convoy protest. This is the crux of her class action lawsuit against the Canada convoy protest, making the information relevant—due weight—for both Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit and Canada convoy protest#Lawsuits. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comments above Okmrman (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to this search, this comment is one of 67 AfD comments Okmrman made in the last hour. Cunard (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All with pretty much the same "per nom" rationale, too. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan women during the Taliban regime[edit]

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

This exact page already exists at Treatment of women by the Taliban. Noorullah (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Nilson (fighter)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet GNG and no longer meets NMMA under its revised criteria Nswix (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keagan Glade[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The most I found was three sentences of coverage here, but no sustained or in-depth coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, career didn’t kick on, and latest information I can find he is no longer a professional player, so very unlikely to generate any significant coverage in the future. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. A reminder to look for foreign language sources when appropriate in nominator's BEFORE. Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Édes Anna[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Can you explain what WP:BEFORE you conducted for this non-English film, OlifanofmrTennant? Because I'm seeing a lot of non-English coverage of the film in Google Books (and even a lot of English mentions and French, for some reason), which would itself imply coverage in 1950s Hungarian newspapers, though I have no idea if such papers are digitized as of yet. Being in the Cannes Film Festival would also imply coverage, which may explain the French coverage actually. SilverserenC 02:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I completlty forgot to check for non-english sources. I looked through Google, Gnews and Gbooks but coulnt find anything that seemed to be SIGCOV. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One additional complication I noticed is that Édes Anna is apparently also the name of a Hungarian brand of paprika. I had to add the director's name to my search string to narrow the results to those actually about the film. SilverserenC 03:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Added a few things. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources in the article plus this: Cunningham, John (2004). Hungarian Cinema: From Coffee House to Multiplex. Wallflower Press. ISBN 978-1-903364-79-6. (good coverage), seems enough. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added one thing from it. Neocorelight (Talk) 23:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in view of the reliable sources book coverage identified in this discussion, and the sources added to the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the sources found during the AFD, Russian Wikipedia has two reviews closer to the time of its release. hinnk (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to create a redirect, feel free to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kalloor[edit]

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

See Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Kalloor (" the place in Tamil Nadu, India, where the Apostle Thomas, one of the 12 disciples of Jesus, is believed to have been killed"). Possible hoax, and unreferenced. Fails WP:V. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Totally unsourced, and most of it unverifiable. That alone suggests deletion, but checking the history of the article, I find the original text (which is still there, with minor changes, but more has been added) is sufficiently out of line with anything in any source that I can find to make it fairly clear that it was a hoax. The result of that is that we have an article which is totally unsourced, most of ut unsourceable, and a significant part of it probably a hoax. No justification at all for keeping it. JBW (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JBW In the discussion linked above @Malerisch suggested this may not be a complete hoax. In either case, this was now incorrectly speedied, sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Yes. Originally I thought this was certainly a hoax, but then I read that discussion, as far as it had gone at the time, and reduced my opinion to "fairly clear" that "a significant part of it [is] probably a hoax", as I said above. That is why I posted here rather than speedily deleting the article. I should have also removed the speedy deletion tag, but I missed doing that. I have now read the current version of the discussion you mentioned, and further information has been added, which makes me think it is not a hoax. However, I still think it should be deleted. JBW (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW For the record, I also think it should be deleted due to lack of sourcing, but after AfD runs its course. I'll go ask at WP:AN for undeletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_undelete_incorrectly_speedily_deleted_article_(now_at_AfD):_Kalloor Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is another place in Tamil Nadu that could be confused: Kallur, Kumbakonam. Google maps shows both. Zerotalk 06:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is completely unsourced and at least the part about Apostle Thomas is clearly a hoax, and the other part, about "prominent families" bearing that name, seems spurious too. We have an article on a Kalloor Oommen Philipose, but there it's a personal name, and generally the name (in this spelling) doesn't seem to be common. So, without verifiable content, there is no need for an article. Gawaon (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. It is a hoax, with some revisions adding barely verifiable details. LOLHWAT (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of sourced content and that the most notable part of the article (Thomas the Apostle's deathplace) is most likely a hoax. SparklessPlug (talk | contribs) 17:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kallur, seems to be a plausible misspelling. Current content is unverifiable and probably a hoax. sohom@enwiki 19:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm near certain this is how the article started, and it probably just got picked up and turned into a hoax.. a really long-running one at that, though it may have gotten to the point where deletion of the link is most favorable Cringe AG (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's probably not a hoax per my comment here, but the article should be deleted due to a lack of reliable sources, as Kalloor only appears briefly in a single source. I get that Thomas the Apostle's place of death being in Tamil Nadu, India might sound like a hoax, perhaps due to an unfamiliarity with Christianity in India, but it actually isn't: both Britannica [80] and Wikipedia say that he died in Madras/Chennai. Kalloor being an Indian name isn't a hoax either (e.g. Yoohanon Chrysostom is real person). Malerisch (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had seen that last article and quickly wondered about it: if his name is "Yoohanon Chrysostom Kalloor" (with Kalloor being the last name), then why is the article named Yoohanon Chrysostom? Gawaon (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Although Indian naming customs can be quite varied, this simply appears to be a case of someone changing his name after becoming a bishop. The official diocese website [81], other sources like [82], and Wikipedia (St. Jude Syro Malankara Catholic Church) say that he formerly went by the name "John Kalloor" and now goes by "Yoohanon Chrysostom". I don't think his name is actually "Yoohanon Chrysostom Kalloor" as the Wikipedia article states. Malerisch (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Pratt (sailor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSPERSON Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Olympics, and Australia. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is plenty of sourcing available as Pratt's Olympic selection and career was discussed in media at the time. For example, see: "Pratt's the right choice". The Age. 1984-03-24. p. 36. Retrieved 2024-05-05. --Habst (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please share other sources if you have them, that's the only link used in the article that's about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b, I added it to the article because I found it. It was only the first one that showed up in my feed, I'll find another when I have a moment free. --Habst (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Even in Gnewspapers, I can only see match reports, nothing at length about this person. Decline for lack of sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b, I would check WP:Newspapers.com instead of Gnewspapers. I found some at length sources, I added a few to the article (it had no non-database sources at the start of this AfD). --Habst (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two sources I found on Trove: [83] & [84]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per BeanieFan11 and Habst. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sourcing now seems adequate. Ingratis (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - g searching is insufficient for Australian subjects, Trove and others are better. JarrahTree 00:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koehler Instrument Company, Inc.[edit]

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

This is not related to the well known plumbing company, but a not so commonly known specialty business who makes laboratory test equipment and offer test services to the oil and gas industry. I see articles authored by "Dr. Raj Shah​ is a Director at Koehler Instrument Company in New York, where he has worked for the last 28 years." but I'm not seeing much coverage on the company in news or books and does not appear to pass WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 00:10, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_May_5&oldid=1223684446"