Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 05 May 07 >

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. Owen× ☎ 11:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Sorin Biris[edit]

Alexandru Sorin Biris (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)

Given the multiple tags, probably worth a full discussion here. Biruitorul Talk 18:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Technology, Romania, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I at least note an overwhelming amount of primary references written by the subject himself. Geschichte (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a GoogleScholar profile for one Alexandru Biris, a student at Politehnica Timișoara, who almost 100% surely piggy-backs on Alexandru Sorin Biris's publication record (all top articles are by AS Biris, and involve nanotechnology and such). If we accept this hypothesis, then the citation record is quite impressive (almost 20K since 2007, with h-index 66 and i10-index 300), though perhaps not that unusual in this field? The most highly cited papers on the GS list have appeared in ACS Nano, which has an impact factor of 17.1. At any rate, one needs to weigh all this against the overbearing self-promotion in the article, and also those "plagiarism and massive data fabrication" issues mentioned there, plus the structural issues regarding the way the article is (very poorly) written and sourced. Turgidson (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, most of the papers in the GS profile appear to belong to the subject of the article here, or at least to someone of the same name at the same university. The highly-cited papers are mostly highly coauthored, but the subject is the last author on two of them (in a field where that matters). It might be weakly enough for WP:NPROF, even in what I believe to be a higher citation field. I am balancing that with WP:TNT. If kept, the article should be stubified. Kannarpady, the WP:BLP policy applies here, and the alleged research misconduct discussed in the article must either be removed or supported by coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and one of the highly-cited last author papers was retracted by the journal. [2][3] Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of these publications are joint with his father (or maybe GS groups them together in that profile?). Incidentally, this IEEE profile only mentions 30 publications and 203 citations — a rather large discrepancy with the GS profile. A social network analysis where both authors are mentioned can be found in this MS thesis. Turgidson (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a Romanian, you must be proud of Alexandru Biris. That is why you try all efforts to cover for him. If this is not the reason you nominated this article for deletion, please explain. Kannarpady (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please let's keep the discussion focused on the article and not the nominator; there's enough to unpack w/o looking at motives. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with this article, but the editor's intent in removing it is questionable. Viswanathan514 (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep -- the citation counts (in a high citation discipline) and one independent coverage of notability seem barely enough to keep the article. Yes, it has too many dependent sources and isn't our best article (though it is salvagable). The high citations of articles where he is last author (institution director) take away a tiny bit from his notability as a researcher but puts it exactly in notability as a director/leader in higher education research. I could, however, be persuaded to go to either a full keep or weak delete with more evidence. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This Kannarpady who created this article seems to work for this person: https://ualr.edu/nanotechnology/about-us/researchers-and-staff/dr-ganesh-kannarpady/
    Seems like personal beef. I would delete this article SleeplessSeatle (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is your only edit on the project, SleeplessSeatle. How did you even find your way here to this AFD? Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I see some highly cited papers, even in a higher citation field, but middle author (in a field where that matters) on a highly coauthored paper doesn't convince me of so much. There are a couple of highly cited papers where Biris is last author, but one has been retracted for research misconduct. I did some work on trimming this down into shape (as did Turgidson), and it is no longer in WP:TNT territory, but the mess leaves me unconvinced of NPROF. There is definitely room for disagreement on this one, and I can also see policy-based arguments for keeping. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Really wish you had carefully read the following pages before you made change to the article :
    [[1]]
    [2] Viswanathan514 (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ How can Alexandru Biris be so successful at University of Arkansas at Little Rock? In just 5 years Mr. Biris published in more than 240 journals, presented at numerous international conferences, and been granted more than 33 U.S. patents. - Quora|https://www.quora.com/How-can-Alexandru-Biris-be-so-successful-at-University-of-Arkansas-at-Little-Rock-In-just-5-years-Mr-Biris-published-in-more-than-240-journals-presented-at-numerous-international-conferences-and-been-granted-more
  2. ^ Reused figures lead to two chemistry retractions, one correction|[1]
  • We cannot use the Quora source for anything concerning a living person, as it is user generated content. The retractionwatch source is already used in the article. Neither has much to do with notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. His h-factor is decent, but as others have said he is typically in the middle of the author list. This means he presumably contributed, but did not lead (last author) or do most of the work (first author). It is a fairly high citation field, so other proofs of notability matter. I see no awards, and h-factors alone should not be everything. Hence to me it is a definitive Delete. If someone can find awards I might reconsider.Ldm1954 (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    N.B., this page seems to have both been a subject of vandalism, and have had votes added by editors who have not contributed much (or even at all) elsewhere in Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:45, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Kirsh[edit]

Philip Kirsh (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)

Lacks significant independent coverage. The New York Times wedding announcement is not independent -- these are user-submitted [4] (and in terms of selection versus decline, this was obviously accepted due to his father being a billionaire, not any notability of the young people); besides being non-independent the announcement contains only two substantive sentences about Philip. The condo-purchase (with sibling) report in NYC real-estate magazine The Real Deal has only half a sentence of encyclopedically noteworthy substantive info about Philip. The Swazi Observer citation (PressReader.com) added by an IP ([5]) is permanently dead, and I can find no coverage relevant to the claim except one passing mention. The Bloomberg stock profile link is permanently dead, and Ki Corporation is his father's holding company.

In an attempt to improve the article, I googled the subject's name in various ways and with various keywords, and found only passing mentions regarding two failed restaurants he co-owned which lasted barely a year. Persingo (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further information: After coming across a Wikipedia mirror of his father's wiki article that said Philip was formerly married to Rona Gluck, I looked into this further. I found that Philip's first wife Rona has been remarried to Fred Davis since at least early 2013: [6], and since 2014/2015 Kirsh has been remarried to Monette de Botton [7] [8] [9]. So the information on the wedding officiant and location is irrelevant/outdated, and the infobox is incorrect. Persingo (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, South Africa, England, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there's news items about his marriage and purchase of realty, but not about him. That's a WP:SIGCOV failure. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 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 04:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Kincl[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Patrik Kincl (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 renominating this article for a better debate, as I think the 1st nomination was not discussed thoroughly enough. The subject is not meeting requirements of English WP notability for MMA fighters (WP:NMMA).

The sources on the article mainly consist of database entries, interviews, subject's personal website and routine fight results. No indication of independent fact checking. An article about signing his autobiography at a book store. Biography in a Czech sports site, which doesn't appear to be very neutral based on the section titled "Patrik Kincl - the birth of an MMA god”.

In addition, the use of the subject personal website biography twice and the tone used shows potential WP:PROMO.
 Others sources found after good faith search (see first nomination) do not appear to be reliable and independent sources. 

No indication that we have the type of coverage required to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.



As user Papaursa mentioned in the first nomination, all coverage is very typical sports reporting that can be found for any fighters, which is nothing that shows particular notability.
 Lekkha Moun (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No additional sources have been found to change my analysis from the previous discussion. Clearly fails WP:NMMA and I don't believe the coverage presented in either the article or previous AfD is sufficient to meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or any other WP notability criteria as it is generally routine, database, not independent and/or unreliably sourced. Papaursa (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as when I first nominated it. Doesn't meet notability. Nswix (talk) 04:19, 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 no consensus‎. The sole Keep view did not provide any valid argument. But without quorum, this can only be treated as a contested PROD. Feel free to renominate in a month. Owen× ☎ 11:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Siraj Akbar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Malik Siraj Akbar (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 BLP, created by a SPA Jarisful (talk · contribs), appears to have been authored by the subject themselves, as he's an experienced editor. This BLP is very promotional in nature, citing unreliable and even unacceptable sources, such as opinion pieces penned by the subject themselves and such pieces are generally not admissible as references. While the subject has garnered some press coverage, but it's too common for journalists to get some sort of press attention on every one of them. To me, this one doesn't appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:JOURNALIST as well WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP but the article needs to be improved by removing unsourced and primary sources. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But as I said the subject doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or even WP:JOURNALIST so what's the point of cleaning up BLP ? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - subject passes WP:JOURNALIST as he is widely cited and interviewed by International and Pakistani media. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you voting twice? While it's clear he's a journalist and may be frequently cited or even invited on TV talk shows, but having a WP BLP requires meeting WP:GNG criteria. Whether he meets that is unclear to me, so if you think he does, you'll need to provide evidence of coverage right here. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am pinging @Mar4d: as they stood with strong sourcing in first AfD. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it ethical to invite those who previously voted "keep"? It could be considered canvassing. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unethical as they earlier hammered by strong sourcing. You too can invite, it's no wrong man. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources provided by Mar4d weren't particularly robust. Mar4d presented 04 references. Let's assess each of them. The Diplomat and [DW sources consist of interviews but they don't directly discuss the subject. While Al Jazeera only mentions him in passing. Only the BBC story offers some coverage of the subject, but it alone isn't sufficient to establish WP:N because it lacks significant depth.
    And no, I don't feel the need to invite anyone here because I generally try to steer clear of such actions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion needs more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Just wanted to point out that although @Twinkle1990 voted to keep the BLP, they only cited WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:JUSTAPOLICY and didn't provided solid reasons backing their stance. In my last comment above, I've thoroughly evaluated each and every reference cited on the BLP and none of them passes WP:SIRS. I'm mentioning this because sometimes AfDs are closed with no consensus due to lack of participation, leaving the BLP on WP unnecessarily which is a bit frustrating. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:54, 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 merge‎ to List of Cobra characters#Metal-Head. Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metal-Head[edit]

Metal-Head (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)

Reliant on primary sources and a non-notable fictional character. More appropriate as a redirect to List_of_Cobra_characters#Metal-Head. Adam Black talk • contributions 23:05, 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. Withdrawn per below (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 15:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Copco[edit]

Atlas Copco (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 company, Fails NCORP and GNG –Davey2010Talk 22:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Major international corporation. At least 45,000 employees (according to the Swedish version of the article). Component of the OMX Stockholm 30, so one of the 30 largest companies in Sweden. Sure, the article could stand some improvement but there is a notable topic here. (I did some cleanup on it back in 2017 when it was in a far worse state and it has been lurking, unloved, on my Watchlist since then.) Main problem is still that so much of the content is referenced to the company's own publications. There are plenty of Google News hits, including articles in high quality sources like the Financial Times. Most are routine stuff but there is definitely some more substantial stuff in there too (e.g. [10]). There is a whole book about them which I think is independently published by Studentlitteratur. There are a lot of hits in Google Scholar, admittedly of varying relevance and quality. If I'm finding this much and I don't speak Swedish then I think there is plenty out there. I'm sure that the main claims about the company's history can be referenced from independent sources, particularly if a Swedish speaker wants to have a go. Anything that can't can be removed. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "If I'm finding this much" - Respectfully other than a FT cite, a book and a mention of Google Scholar you've not found much if anything,
    "I'm sure that the main claims about the company's history can be referenced from independent sources" - What independent sources ?, I've obviously performed a WP:BEFORE search and nothing came back that establishes notability and or one can build an article out of. Thanks –Davey2010Talk 10:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's inconcievable that BEFORE was observed. 200 000 hits in the Swedish newspaper archives. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: one of Swedens largest companies in terms of employees, with a market capitalization above 80 billion USD.
  • Fantastic for a promotional advert, meaningless for an Encyclopedia. –Davey2010Talk 10:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some blatant promotional and trivial content way back. If there is more then that can be removed too. That is not an argument for complete deletion. DanielRigal (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've rarely seen an article at AfD I think so easily passes our guidelines for what content we want to include. This is a major corporation with a huge footprint in the history of Swedish manufacturing. /Julle (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DanielRigal @Draken Bowser @Julle, Apologies all, At the time of searching only 7-10 results showed but having now re-searched ... yeah there's over 30 pages on Google and this does easily pass GNG so I don't know why the limited results earlier ?. I always do a BEFORE search before nominating always have done so I'm lost as to why none of this showed earlier ?, Anyway I'm happy for this to be kept, Thanks all. –Davey2010Talk 15:31, 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 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! 22:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Felix[edit]

Bruno Felix (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)

In CAT:NN for 14 years. Some coverage, but not enough coverage or significance to meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 29 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! 22:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Terrorism in Yemen. Owen× ☎ 11:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Bin Salman mosque bombing[edit]

2008 Bin Salman mosque 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)

The 2 sources provided are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorism in Yemen under its own section. The coverage above does not convince me of long term notability; there was some commentary immediately after it occured, but not a lot. Most notable as part of the overall terrorism situation (which merging it to the article preserves) It's possible of course that long term coverage exists in another language and if evidence of that is ever provided I would not argue against its recreation, but I doubt it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 21:46, 29 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! 22:35, 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 List of television stations in California#LPTV stations. Content is preserved in case sources become available. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KSCZ-LD[edit]

KSCZ-LD (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 does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: The various subchannels collectively represent most of the local Vietnamese-langauge media landscape in one of the largest Vietnamese American markets. They would be more notable than the station itself, sort of like anchor stores being more notable than their strip mall. These subchannels previously broadcast on KAXT-CD, which was notable in its own right for technical innovations during the 2010s. But after KAXT changed ownership and the Vietnamese stations fled to KSCZ, I haven't found a good way to write about them. Maybe I can find some angle for it in Media in the San Francisco Bay Area, minus all the technical details in this article. Minh Nguyễn 💬 01:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mxn, this is interesting to hear. Is there any SIGCOV of the individual channels? At that point, they might be the ones with articles. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Sammi Brie: Yes. Most of the subchannels originate in Los Angeles or Houston; some are mom-and-pop operations, with programming similar to what you'd see on a YouTube channel or FAST, but others like LSTV have SIGCOV in English-language press. One of them, Quê Hương, originates locally and is the granddaddy of all Vietnamese American broadcast media, but all they have now is a WP:COATRACK at KZSJ despite also running a weekly newspaper at one point. Unfortunately, the main reliable source about the local Vietnamese media scene historically would've been Viet Mercury, which isn't archived anywhere online as far as I know. The San Jose Mercury News archives only include the relatively few articles that were translated into English. Minh Nguyễn 💬 11:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to state list The problem is that this station has had a journeyman history that rivals some early radio stations. When it was assigned, its COL was Buellton/Solvang. Indeed, it was a TBN station, on channel 53. It later turned up near Coalinga. The transmitter now is 372 kilometres (231 mi) from where it started. The second problem is that the SIGCOV won't be there for this LPTV, not in Santa Barbara, not in Coalinga, and not in San Jose. If the individual program services are notable, then so be it, but a bunch of famous people staying in one hotel doesn't make the hotel notable. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an extended stay hotel. I think it's just too awkward to talk about any of these subchannels in the same article as the one about the station's pre-Venture history. I wouldn't be able to make the prose fit even if we had the SIGCOV. Minh Nguyễn 💬 11:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please provide a link to a specific Merge or Redirect target article if that is the outcome you are seeking.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youlin Magazine[edit]

Youlin Magazine (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)

There's nothing sig/in-depth as required by WP:GNG. It's more of a promotional article relying on press releases styled coverage. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 22:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 22:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, News media, and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I am asking the deletion nominator Saqib to give some credibility to the editorial staffs at Dawn newspaper, The Express Tribune newspaper that they found this magazine worthy of their news coverage. There are 3 existing references by them at this article. More coverage and more sources can be found I am sure, if we try. For people that are not familiar with Youlin Magazine, it's a 'Pakistani and Chinese cultural monthly online magazine'. As Wikipedia editors, many people like me have been using it for several years now and find it very useful...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your statement gives off a vibe of WP:ILIKEIT. Merely having coverage in WP:RS doesn't automatically mean this online magazine is WP:N. We need sig/in-depth coverage that also meets WP:SIRS. The current sourcing can back up claims for WP:V, but it's not sufficient to establish WP:N. If you reckon there's solid coverage like that, you gotta lay it down right here. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 22:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to argue WP:ILIKEIT and you don't. I feel there is no need for anybody to 'lay it down here' at the AfD Forum, some of it is already there at the article for everybody to see. Yes, the article can use some improvement, I admit. Besides myself, I'll let the Wikipedia community decide whether this article is worth saving or not?...Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thoroughly checked the references already in the article and since they were not good enough to meet WP:GNG, I put this up for deletion. So now, you or anyone else has gotta come up with coverage that passes WP:SIRS right here which can help establish WP:N. Don't just say there are sources out there somewhere, show us by giving them. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comments above. Okmrman (talk) 04:18, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in Albania[edit]

List of battles in Albania (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:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to List of battles in Belgium (deleted recently). NLeeuw (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unreferenced and would depend on the definition of Albania at the time. LibStar (talk) 07:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Workday, Inc.. Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workday Adaptive Planning[edit]

Workday Adaptive Planning (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:CORP, at least in my opinion. There is no significant coverage from a reliable source, the Fortune article cited is simply a serialized list. A cursory Google search for alternative sources didn't turn up much, as they were acquired by Workday. TJS808 (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Workday, Inc. All independent available coverage that I can find is in the vein of acquisitions and thus not qualifying under WP:ORGCRIT ([12], [13], [14]). Other available coverage appears to be sponcon or otherwise not independent. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also second Dclemens1971's opinion to merge for the same reason. Annika59 (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miller Trunk Corridor[edit]

Miller Trunk Corridor (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 retail corridor in Duluth, Minnesota, certainly exists. However, most coverage of the area is about traffic on the state highway, not the built-up commercial area, a collection of strip malls plus one enclosed shopping center. This is a bunch of original research and a long listing of stores, neither of which justify an article. Some of the stores listed at the time of this AfD are no longer extant (Gander Mountain! Pier 1 Imports!). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:36, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie Bent[edit]

Mackenzie Bent (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:NSKATE; PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 23:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, Soft deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Source assessment table: prepared by User:Toddy1
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Holder, Gord (16 January 2014). "Junior titles handed out on final day of competition". The Ottawa Citizen. p. 13. Yes Yes ~ Significant coverage, but very limited scope ~ Partial
McNair, Brian (February 11, 2016). "Uxbridge's Mackenzie Bent and Ajax's Dmitre Razgulajevs off to junior worlds in Hungary". Uxbridge Times Journal. Durham Region.
Cayley, Shawn (5 January 2012). "Durham duo impresses in ice dance. Big things in store for Mackenzie Bent and Garrett MacKeen". Oshawa This Week – via DurhamRegion.com.
Kelly, Brad (1 February 2013). "Uxbridge's Mackenzie Bent, Oshawa's Garrett MacKeen earn silver at nationals". Oshawa This Week – via DurhamRegion.com. 		Yes Yes Yes All three articles discuss the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
Slater, Paula (August 26, 2014). "Double duty for Canada's Bent and MacKeen". Golden Skate. Yes Yes Yes Source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
Smith, Beverley (15 January 2014). "Double duty for Canada's Bent and MacKeen". Skate Canada. Yes Yes ~ Limited scope ~ Partial
"Canadian ice dancers Bent, MacKeen drop to 5th at world juniors". CBC. 17 March 2015. Yes Yes No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett MacKeen[edit]

Garrett MacKeen (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:NSKATE; PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 23:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, Soft deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Source assessment table: prepared by User:Toddy1
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Holder, Gord (16 January 2014). "Junior titles handed out on final day of competition". The Ottawa Citizen. p. 13. Yes Yes ~ Significant coverage, but very limited scope ~ Partial
Slater, Paula (August 26, 2014). "Double duty for Canada's Bent and MacKeen". Golden Skate. Yes Yes Yes Source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
Smith, Beverley (15 January 2014). "Double duty for Canada's Bent and MacKeen". Skate Canada. Yes Yes ~ Limited scope ~ Partial
"Canadian ice dancers Bent, MacKeen drop to 5th at world juniors". CBC. 17 March 2015. Yes Yes No ✘ No
Cayley, Shawn (5 January 2012). "Durham duo impresses in ice dance. Big things in store for Mackenzie Bent and Garrett MacKeen". Oshawa This Week – via DurhamRegion.com.
Kelly, Brad (1 February 2013). "Uxbridge's Mackenzie Bent, Oshawa's Garrett MacKeen earn silver at nationals". Oshawa This Week – via DurhamRegion.com. 		Yes Yes Yes Both articles discuss the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muscovite–Ukrainian War (1674–1676)[edit]

Muscovite–Ukrainian War (1674–1676) (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)

Case similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muscovite–Ukrainian War (1658–1659). Cossack-Russian fighting was part of the Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681) and partially Polish–Ottoman War (1672–1676). Doroshenko was an Ottoman vassal during that time. Russia was trying to conquer entire Ukraine using the fact that the Ottoman Empire was engaged in the war with Poland. They besieged Doroshenko in Chigirin, but he was saved by a Turkish army in 1675. A year later another Russian campaign caused Doroshenko to switch alliances and join Russians.

Of course the name itself is problematic. Doroshenko was only one of the few Cossack hetmans at that time, and he was ruling only part of the Right-bank Ukraine as an Ottoman vassal. There was also supported by Poland Ostap Hohol, and supported by Russia Ivan Samoylovych. Marcelus (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nearly all of this is unsourced so it is not possible to merge. As in the aforementioned AfD, there is very little that supports the idea of a separate war between "Ukraine" and "Moscow";[16] this was part of a larger war and pushes a certain narrative. Much of this looks like OR presumably based on two sources not reliable for history. Mellk (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: largely unsourced original research of a topic of dubious provenance. Nothing worth merging. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 19:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Florian G. Kaiser[edit]

Florian G. Kaiser (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)

89.5% of this article's content was written by FgkaiseR5131, who has seemingly admitted to being the subject of this article. I will skip reporting this to WP:COIN since this user has stopped editing after Liz warned them of the COI policy on their talk page in December 2023. Google and Google Scholar searches do not return significant external coverage and all three of the article's references not written by Kaiser only discuss the Campbell paradigm, rather than supporting the idea that Kaiser has been significantly impactful in this area of social psychology. While this subject could be considered prominent with an h-index of 59, there is no external coverage to support this and the other notability criteria for academics do not apply (e.g., prestigious awards, fellowships, professorships, etc.). BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 21:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Does this subject meet C8 of WP:NPROF from spending a year as the editor of the Journal of Environmental Psychology? This is not my field, so I can't tell whether this is a "major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." Qflib (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
correction: Co-editor... Qflib (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the interpretation of "subject area," as it is the top environmental psychology journal, but it is not within the top 50 of Scopus' 2023 rankings of psychology journals. Given that subject-specific notability is therefore borderline amid a lack of third-party coverage, I would also be fine with moving this to draftspace. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 21:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the Research part of the article is self-serving and needs significant trimming, I think this subject is notable and we should not delete a page just because it's improperly written or edited.
I see a senior scholar that has over 20,000 citations of their work, more than 9000 of which have been since 2019, as well as a single paper with nearly 2500 citations, as well as editorship of what seems to be the top journal in his subfield, I see C1 being WP:NPROF being met. Specifically, our guidance for C1 includes language like "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates."
I do see from this reference (https://conservation-psychology.com/researchers/dr-florian-g-kaiser-prof/) that he is a fellow of the American Psychological Association (APA) and the International Association of Applied Psychology. So I think he meets C3 as well (I'll put this into the article in a moment). Edit: I see that APA fellow status is by application and does not meet C3. But the IAAP is an elected honor according to https://iaapsy.org/membership/fellows/.
I'm not at all sure that C8 has been met, though. Although this journal is "well established," I can't tell whether or not it is a "major" journal and would defer to others who know this area better than I.
Anyway, meeting a single criterion of WP:NPROF is enough to establish notability. Qflib (talk) 17:43, 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. and Redirect to WatchMojo Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkan Karbasfrooshan[edit]

Ashkan Karbasfrooshan (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)

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an internet entrepreneur, not reliably sourced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, CEOs are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their third-party coverage in reliable sources (media, books) independent of themselves -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as YouTube videos and press releases and Amazon sales pages for his books and "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations or companies he's been directly affiliated with -- and the only acceptably reliable sources, Deadline Hollywood and the Montreal Gazette, both just feature him as a provider of soundbite, but not as the subject of the coverage, which means they aren't enough to get him over GNG all by themselves if all the rest of the sourcing is junk.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, well, well - this is article about a guy living in Montreal who is the head of a company based in Montreal written by a user with an IP from Montreal, and who, curiously, has made no other contributions to Wikipedia whatsoever. What a coincidence. That aside, sourcing is poor and none of the handful reliable sources provide in-depth of Karbasfrooshan - they all focus on WatchMojo. Delete and redirect to WatchMojo, as was originally the case. Cortador (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect As somebody who worked on the WatchMojo article, I can say I think that most, if not all, information about Karbasfrooshan which can be sourced to secondary RS is already on that page. I initially created this page as a redirect to WatchMojo before it was converted into an article. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 22:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Hate Sex[edit]

I Hate Sex (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)

Band which appears to fail WP:NBAND. They were only active from 2015–2018, so it's unlikely they'll receive further WP:SIGCOV. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep, withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 08:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás Fernández Miranda[edit]

Nicolás Fernández Miranda (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 available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC) I am withdrawing my nomination based on new sources discovered.Shinadamina (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - WITHDRAW NOMINATION - I am withdrawing my nomination based on new sources discovered. ATTN: @liz

Shinadamina (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2007 Rugby World Cup squads#Portugal. Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duarte Figueiredo[edit]

Duarte Figueiredo (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 available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina (talk) 19:24, 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 List of Namibia national rugby union players. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Esterhuyse[edit]

Nico Esterhuyse (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 available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina (talk) 19:21, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khatti Meethi Zindagi[edit]

Khatti Meethi Zindagi (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)

Page is unreferenced and I cannot locate anything in a WP:BEFORE to establish notability. Show only ran for about 2 months so unlikely notable. CNMall41 (talk) 18:40, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strathmeade Springs, Virginia[edit]

Strathmeade Springs, Virginia (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)

Insignificant neighborhood within Woodburn, Fairfax County, Virginia. WP:BEFORE yields nothing useful. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emi Khan[edit]

Emi 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)

So, we've got a singer, film director, producer and actor on our hands so I'm scratching my head over which policy to apply here. But whichever one we go with - I'm pretty darn sure they won't make the cut. Not even the basic WP:GNG, —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:38, 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 speedy keep. There is no chance at all that this gets deleted. Wikipedia:AFD is not cleanup. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cliza (town)[edit]

Cliza (town) (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)

Whole article is a promotion, has WP:OR, and "History", "Education", and "Notable people" sections have no sources CosXZ (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Al-Arabi SC (Kuwait) players[edit]

List of Al-Arabi SC (Kuwait) 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)

This is an indiscriminate list of mostly non-notable people which does not meet the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 17:49, 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 Viscount Samuel. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Samuel, 5th Viscount Samuel[edit]

Jonathan Samuel, 5th Viscount Samuel (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)

Relatively new British nobleman who never sat in the House of Lords, fails WP:BIO. There's not much outside of wiki-clones when looking this person up on Google News or Google Books: all we get as far as printed material goes are the usual suspects, Burke's Peerage (tertiary, not in-depth), Debrett's (idem), and I suppose Who's Who (autobiographical, not independent, generally unreliable at WP:RSP). Pilaz (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hashtag Pop[edit]

Hashtag Pop (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:GNG. Has had a {{notability}} tag for eight months with no improvements. References are either company listings, articles hosted by Hashtag Pop itself, or other news sources re-reporting their stories. A WP:BEFORE search in Portuguese doesn't yield any reliable sources with significant coverage. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dayytona Fox[edit]

Dayytona Fox (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)

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim here is a guest appearance on one album track from another musician's album, which is not an automatic notability clinch in and of itself -- and the article further states that it hasn't proven possible to verify that he's even signed to a record label at all, so the number of titles in the discography section does not fulfill NMUSIC #5 if the music's only verifiable release was on SoundCloud.
But except for one article in The Fader which is too short to get him over WP:GNG all by itself if it's all he has, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as directory entries and Reddit discussion threads and a podcast interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person -- and even on a WP:BEFORE search for other sources, I just get glancing namechecks of his existence rather than GNG-building reliable source coverage about him.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when he attains a stronger notability claim that has better referencing for it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to already qualify him for an article now. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Non-notable musician, almost zero SIGCOV of him or any of his works, apart from the brief The Fader article, which covers his feature on Takeoff's "Infatuation". Being an "associated performer" on one song is not sufficient enough to fulfill WP:NMUSICIAN. Mooonswimmer 19:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The Fader link is a brief but useful bio. The rest are about what I find and don't help notability. Delete for not meeting MUSIC or GNG. Perhaps TOOSOON. Oaktree b (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Garrity[edit]

John Garrity (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 couldn't find enough to show he meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: one of the sources is by, not about the subject. another source quotes, but is not about the subject. there simply isn't significant coverage. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable soldier/public servant. No SIGCOV of the subject, just brief mentions. Mooonswimmer 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Single viable ref is a passing mention. Nothing else of significance. scope_creepTalk 09:52, 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 Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Lucafò[edit]

Sara Lucafò (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 Italian women's footballer has not yet received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG -- this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. All I found on the subject were a pair of interviews (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC) I support draftification as an ATD. JTtheOG (talk) 00:22, 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 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! 21:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riccardo Raffaele[edit]

Riccardo Raffaele (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, an Italian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this transactional announcement, but no in-depth or sustained coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 17:18, 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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of AD Bairro players[edit]

List of AD Bairro 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)

This is a indiscriminate list of mostly non-notable players. Let'srun (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warrick Venter[edit]

Warrick Venter (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 I found were trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Radebe[edit]

Charles Radebe (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 I found were trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janu Botha[edit]

Janu Botha (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. I found this interview and not much else. JTtheOG (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Snyman[edit]

Mark Snyman (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)

South African rugby player who fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 11:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Draven[edit]

Jamie Draven (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 significant in-depth coverage. All I could find were passing mentions (more or less like these 1, 2, 3, 4) and Wiki mirrors. Moreover, the article is unreferenced. X (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Appears to fail WP:NACTOR. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This should not go without consensus, being a crummy unreferenced junk with only an IMDb link. At the very least it should be drafted if not deleted. X (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xoak: We typically do draftify if someone has offered to work on it in the AfD. But if we go ahead with draftification and no one is interested in actually working on the article, then it'll just get WP:CSD G13 deleted in 6 months anyways. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is true that he's not terribly prolific, but he did have a major role in a highly influential film so I think he scrapes by. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He doesn't need to be prolific, just someone with adequate sig coverage would do. And regarding playing significant roles, WP:NACTOR states The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. He fails these two as well as I'd not say that "the person hasn't made unique, prolific, or innovative contributions to the field of entertainment", in any case we'd still need a source for this statement. And If no sig coverage sources can be added at all, then this should not be kept. X (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unsourced BLP. Fails GNG and NBIO. No sources in article, above keep vote found no sources, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth, more of the same non-SIGCOV that nom found. BLPs require strong sourcing, this has none.  // Timothy :: talk  02:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Buddy Story[edit]

A Buddy Story (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)

Found zero evidence of notability myself. Mushy Yank added a Variety article which mentions the film, but only very briefly, so I don't take it for much. And even then, if that's all there is then I don't see why this should've been dePRODded in the first place. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete doesn't seem to meet WP:NF. It was missing from two of the cast's filmography tables so I added it in, noticed that Elizabeth Moss and Torah Feldshuh have both made more recent films that don't have articles so unless anyone can find better independent sources I don't think this needs an entry. Orange sticker (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Slash Film and MTV are RS, but they only briefly talk about the film's trailer, which I don't think help meet film notability. Those are about all I can find as well, I don't think we have enough for film notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 21[edit]

IC 21 (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 galaxy has only been featured in databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT C messier (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: at that distance I suspect it's probably not going to get a serious study unless it is unusual in some way, and sure enough there are no significant studies on the object, although there are a few web sites. Being an active Seyfert 2 galaxy isn't enough to make it notable. I don't see a list page where it could be redirected. Praemonitus (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The IC is a supplement of the New General Catalogue, and is therefore of similar historical importance. Ships & Space(Edits) 20:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't enough to establish notability. Not all NGC objects are notable, let alone IC objects. C messier (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no references suggesting this galaxy is anything more than another catalog object in the sky. Not notable, per Wikipedia:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#Establishing_notability. I see the author has created a whole bunch of also non-notable articles: I'll request a mass delete for them. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any sources on google. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 16:16, 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 merge‎ to List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War#Fixed-wing aircraft 2. Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Russian Aerospace Forces Antonov An-26 crash[edit]

2022 Russian Aerospace Forces Antonov An-26 crash (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 GNG and EVENTCRIT. Per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of lasting effects. No recent news on the topic so fails both CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Russia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The crash catches my attention because it it doesn't sound like a "normal" accident. To me it sounds the plane was shot out of the sky or blown up either accidentally or on purpose. Anyway, both ways, that would make it plausible that Russia tries to cover it up. Due to the contoversies and because I think it would be a shame if this information would be lost, I vote Weak keep. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the plane were shot down, then the accident doesn't exactly warrant an article as it has already been mentioned in: List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War and List of Russian military accidents.
    Even then, the fact that there hasn't been any news related to this accident since 2022 already fails, as I've said, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED.
    The event fails WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE as most sources were covered by russian media outlets and didn't receive significant or in-depth coverage to be considered notable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And the argument on losing the information is pretty weak per WP:LOSE as this article already fails multiple guidelines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, instead of deleting: merge and redirect to List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War#Russian aircraft losses might be the best option. I would propose stating there (including removing the current "cashed" typo):

    Registration number RF-36074 crashed in Uryv-Pokrovka, Voronezh Oblast. The aircraft exploded in the air and fell between three villages. Fragments of the wreck scattered of over a large area.[1] According to the Ministry of Defense, the preliminary cause was equipment failure.[2] According to eyewitnesses the cause was possibly a shell hit.[3] All of the undisclosed number of occupants were killed, consisting of crew members and paratroopers.[3] Usually this type of aircraft has six crew members.[1]

    82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like, judging from other entries in the article, that we should follow the same style therefore I would suggest keeping the entry as it is:

    Registration number RF-36074 cashed in Voronezh Oblast, killing an undisclosed number of occupants. Allegedly caused by a technical malfunction. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a non-established style should never be regarded as more important than the quality of the prose or an inhibition of content. Note the current Russian state owned Tass source has an interest and might be unreliable. The sources I use are more journalistic and not one-sided. (And what I said, don’t keep the typo :) ) 82.174.61.58 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The information is already there and it needs to be kept simple. I do agree with replacing the typo. I'm suggesting the following:

    Registration RF-36074 crashed in Voronezh Oblast, killing an undisclosed number of occupants. Preliminary reports indicate a technical malfunction.
    Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "Транспортник прошел между селами" [Transporter passed between the villages]. Kommersant (in Russian). 2022-02-25. Archived from the original on 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2022-12-18.
  2. ^ "В Воронежской области потерпел крушение самолет Ан-26" [An-26 plane crashed in Voronezh region]. Mir 24 (in Russian). February 24, 2022. Archived from the original on 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2022-12-18.
  3. ^ a b "В Воронежской области упал самолет Су-25" [A Su-25 plane crashed in the Voronezh region]. vrntimes (in Russian). 25 February 2022. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
  • Comment I tried to improve the article with these edits. I expanded the article (among others witnesses reports, noted there were paratroopers onboard and the number of crew members) and added an extra source. However, this was reverted by Lachielmao (talk · contribs). 82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify I had no issue with the new content and sources added, but there was speculation used without a source as well as rewriting sections with worse grammar and writing prose. Lachielmao (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lachielmao: I don't understand why you say I added speculations without a source. See here the version after I expanded it. Everything was well referenced. (Bye the way, it sounds ambiguous when you're saying "I had no issue with the new content and sources added" because you removed it.) 82.174.61.58 (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be preferable if you discussed this on the talk page instead of this page as this is a discussion on whether to keep or delete the article, not to talk about whether or not these edits should be included. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As per nom, this fails WP:SUSTAINED, and this crash doesn't seem to be any more notable than the many Russian aircraft crashes listed in the List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War that don't have their own article, so we should just merge the basic information about the crash there. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sole keep !vote was blocked as a sock, leaving us with the nom as an implied delete and one merge !vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 20:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shatha Mousa Sadiq[edit]

Shatha Mousa Sadiq (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)

PRODded with "The only reference is dead. There is nothing here about this person at all. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing. I cannot tell if that is because the name is mis-spelled/wrong or whether this is a hoax article. In any case there is simply no information, at all. " PROD has been contested on basis of presumed notability, but that does not take into account that searches literally show nothing at all (I discount a tiny handful of citogenesis hits on Google). I do not know if this is a WP:HOAX or an error in the name, but from my searches, this person does not seem to exist. The published existence of this page places wrong information in the public domain. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iraq. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a search in Arabic shows it is definitely not a hoax. She exists and there’s a video of a tv interview with her, and another clip confirms she was in the National Assembly, so she passes WP:NPOL. My iPad insists on using link shorteners that Wikipedia blocks so I’ll post the links from my desktop in a while. Mccapra (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was just coming back here to say I think there is a person but the name is wrong. This New York Times article refers to her as Shatha al-Musawi.[18] She shows up in various books under that name. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw and request speedy close. The name of the subject in sources is Shatha al-Musawi. She is notable under that name as demonstrated by several secondary sources - books such as [19], [20] and [21] have some mention of her and all are reliable secondary sources. The New York Times has a mention too. Once closed I intend to bold move the page to the WP:COMMONNAME fromw where it can be developed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:09, 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! 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudanese tuberculosis outbreak (2023−present)[edit]

Sudanese tuberculosis outbreak (2023−present) (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)

Unable to locate any sources to support that there was an outbreak of tuberculosis in Sudan in 2023.

This article as a whole seems to misrepresent the main source used.[22] The source does not support An ongoing outbreak of tuberculosis (TB), an infectious disease, was confirmed in Sudan in May 2023. The source does not support On 8 May 2023, the UN announced a significant outbreak of tuberculosis in Sudan and Ukraine The source does not support the bolded portion here: It confirmed at least 34,000 cases in Ukraine and a large but unspecified number in Sudan.

There was no "announcement". The source summarizes what "Dr. Lucica Ditiu, executive director of the Stop TB Partnership, said before a hearing Monday to prepare for a high-level meeting in late September during the annual gathering of world leaders at the UN General Assembly." The source is about worldwide TB challenges. All it says about Sudan is:

In Sudan, 18,000 people received treatment for tuberculosis in 2021, according to the Stop TB Partnership, which is managed by the UN Office for Project Services and aims to achieve a world free of tuberculosis. But Ditiu said the situation there for TB sufferers, because of the ongoing fighting and collapse of most of the health system, is "probably like a ticking bomb."

"Probably like a ticking bomb" does not justify the content in the article.

None of the other sources in the article are about a "Sudanese tuberculosis outbreak". One is a review of TB in Sudan between 2004-2014. Six are about TB, unrelated to Sudan. Five are about the war in Sudan, unrelated to TB. The topic of the article as indicated by the article title, is only addressed by the lead sentence and the very last paragraph (which, again, is not supported by the source).

I was looking for sources to update the content, since it's "2023–present". I found concerns about cholera, dengue fever, and measles,[23] but couldn't find anything talking about a TB outbreak in Sudan. Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Medicine, and Sudan. Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comprehensive analysis by the nom. There are no reliable independent secondary sources claiming there is any such outbreak, and what there is has been distorted. This is not encyclopaedic - there is SYNTH and OR but no evidence of a primary subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seems to be bits of information cobbled together, OR-ish. An uptick is diseases is an unfortunate side effect of any war when the healthcare system breaks down and basic sanitation goes away due to the situation. Could very well be an "outbreak" but it might not meet notability requirements here. This isn't the next Covid outbreak, to put it in perspective. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We could perhaps put a few words about the various diseases (as mentioned in the comment above my !vote) in an article about "2023 conflict in the Sudan" or something similar, but I don't think we have quite enough to make an entire wiki article about it. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This outbreak seems inherently connected to the collapse of the healthcare system in Sudan due to the ongoing civil war in the country, so I suggest the information presented be placed in a section of the main article, rather than having its own article. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Samoht27, there is no reliable source to support that there even was a tuberculosis outbreak, that's the problem. We can't merge unverifiable claims to another article. Schazjmd (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, article is WP:SYNTH. No hits for "Sudanese tuberculosis outbreak". Mooonswimmer 18:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The reference for the first sentence does not seem to support the claim that there is a notable TB outbreak in Sudan. After that first sentence, the article is about TB in general or about conflict in Sudan and doesn't say anything more about a current TB outbreak. Mgp28 (talk) 12:16, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QuuxPlayer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
QuuxPlayer (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 software. No WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS under either names. Linked reviews are unreliable download reposting websites (the PCWorld one is blatantly an ad, the CNET one is actually CNET Download which is unreliable) and searching finds nothing other than similar download reposting sites. Previously deleted in AfD but recreated. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with the analysis by the nom. The Cnet link is a download link and the PC World link is now 404, so I can't tell how useful it is/was. I can only find download sites or reviews on non-RS. I don't see notability with what's given in the article or in my search. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Little to be found online, let alone in reliable sources. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 23:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bomba calabrese[edit]

Bomba calabrese (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)

Only a single source listed, I cannot find independent sources online. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:39, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Werenka[edit]

Max Werenka (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:BLP1E Fram (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Canada. Fram (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Finding an old car in a lake isn't notable, the case surrounding the missing person could be. This is very much 1E territory. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Article creator Memevietnam98 also uploaded the article's infobox image to Commons claiming a CC BY 3.0 license, which is unsupported by the provided source link, so I have nominated the image for deletion too. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 01:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the events and sources are not something to base an encyclopedic biography upon. Geschichte (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. Besides failing BLP1E, this also is a terrible case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 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 redirect‎ to 2023 Major League Cricket season. Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Washington Freedom Season[edit]

2023 Washington Freedom Season (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)

Simply scorecards and an unnecessary content fork for a non-notable team in a non-notable tournament. The remark from the PROD removal was "it has potential"; beyond what is there at the moment, where is the potential? Enough coverage will never exist to flesh out a well written article, so this will always violate WP:NOTSTATS and fail WP:GNG. AA (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rugbyfan's rationale. --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 00:54, 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caps (rapper)[edit]

Caps (rapper) (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 indication of notability. Looked for sources and found none (though that might be muddled by the simple name). —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 14:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 14:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Gsearch hits on social media, then goes off into nothingness. Very much not notable, no charted singles, no awards won, no coverage in RS, nothing found for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Wikishovel (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only external links used as sources here and no sign of notability. @T.C.G. [talk] 16:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: And beyond the cogent arguments above, this twenty word sub-stub is the next thing to worthless. "His work combines elements of classic hip-hop with new beats." Meaning what, exactly? If this had been submitted as a draft, I'd reject it until and unless the creator could actually put down some well attested facts. Wikipedia isn't waste paper. Ravenswing 02:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What we see now is the result of cleanup by Wikishovel after foundational promotional copyvio by the article creator, from whose ANI discussion I found this AfD. Wikishovel, thanks for your efforts, but I think it was not worth your time to try to clean it up. It's no longer promotional and copied, but it doesn't provide any evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only a few minutes' work, thanks. I wouldn't have bothered if it were longer. Wikishovel (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Murray (disambiguation)[edit]

Craig Murray (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)

Page not needed. At present we really only have two articles with this name, so they can be dealt with by a hatnote. If more articles are created with this name, and they survive any notability challenge, we can create a disambiguation page, but not before then. PatGallacher (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are 4 different people on the page, and in the encyclopedia, and disentangling them is a useful service. PamD 14:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Disambiguations. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 14:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nomination doesn't mention this going against our guidelines. Disentangling them is important and this way readers can see where there is information on a person and click on the redlinks to see all incoming links. Boleyn (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the two redlinked entries meet MOS:DABMENTION, as both are mentioned within their adjacent bluelinked articles. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 15:17, 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 Republican movement (Ireland). Discussion on a better redirect target may proceed on the target's Talk page, and/or on Talk:Óglaigh na hÉireann (Real IRA splinter group). Owen× ☎ 11:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Republican Movement[edit]

Irish Republican Movement (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)

Was never notable in the first place, although it had the potential to be at the start. There was a brief flurry of news in relation to a statement they put out, but no sources that covered the organisation in any significant depth. No publicity since that statement at all. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Terrorism, Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the references already present in the article establish notability. Even if the group is no longer active, "once notable, always notable." I seem to remember someone saying that some of the people in the handout photo that appears in several of the references weren't holding their weapons correctly, implying that this was never a serious group. I can't confirm this, though. Nonetheless, reliable sources have covered this group, which means it's notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was never notable, although it had the potential to be if it had actually done anything. But other than releasing a statement, they've done nothing. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland). (And remove from Template:IRAs.) Per nom, the (current) topic/subject of the title (the org which asserted this name) is not notable. And never was. The only coverage suggests that a group(?), giving itself this name, released a statement (maybe two), back in 2019/2020. And that, seemingly, is all. The coverage, of those statements, doesn't meet WP:SIRS. In which the "S" ("S"ignificant) requires "significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth". The coverage does NOT cover the subject org in any depth. At all. (For all we know the "group" could have 2 members. If even that.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The comment above mine makes a great point; once notable, always notable. Even if the group isn't as active as it used to be, there's nothing wrong with keeping it around as it provides insight into the contemporary Dissident movement.
Castroonthemoon (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except, as repeatedly pointed out, it was never notable in the first place. A brief flurry of news about a single statement does not meet WP:SUSTAINED. See also guidance at WP:ORGDEPTH, there has to be coverage that "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization". Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland) - Per the argument put forward by Guliolopez. I agree with Guliolopez and Kathleen's bike that sources (or rather lack of) indicate that this organisation did not ever materialise in reality. While it's supposed founding was touted, it was never actually active. One press release is not enough to justify an article. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Óglaigh na hÉireann (Real IRA splinter group), where it is already mentioned. I agree that the topic is not standalone notable, but it's better discussed at the article where it splintered from, rather than just redirected to the main article on the republican movement. -- asilvering (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:37, 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 University of St Andrews Athletic Union. Owen× ☎ 11:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Andrews Typhoons[edit]

St Andrews Typhoons (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)

Lacking in-depth secondary source coverage to meet the general notability guideline. Seen at NPP, moved to draftspace to allow for improvement but reverted by creator. AusLondonder (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize I reverted an initial draftspace sending, I was just editing over time. What sort of sources should I add to make more credibility? There's only a few sources (university, BUIHA and the team's website) I found out to use. Should I improve in the drafter before releasing or try to expand on the existing page? Fastfads (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They would have to be "significant coverage" to the subject, from secondary sources from multiple reputable media outlets. If such coverage doesn't exist, or consists of simple scores/stats or namedrops, an article cannot be sustained. My vote is to Redirect to the University of St Andrews article if no such sources are proffered. Ravenswing 08:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added quite a few sources to the new page (and a few new sections with the source expansions!) - direct resources which tell plenty of stories from plenty of reputable outlets (at least in my opinion). Would appreciate your opinion at this point in article growth. Fastfads (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fastfads, firstly can I say this nomination is not a reflection on your work. Wikipedia does however have requirements articles must meet to demonstrate suitability for inclusion, most importantly the general notability guideline. Please take a look at the guideline for the kind of sources we require. Thanks, AusLondonder (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the motives for high quality articles and I understand the initial deletion nomination with what I originally published but I've put a significant amount work into making this article better. And once again, thank you for linking me to the many rules of Wikipedia article writing. It's been an learning experience and I feel my standards have had a lot of growth with recent edits - I think my extremely long "Keep" defense below gives evidence for that growth (and why this article should stay up). Yet I continue to have my work under a microscope - and the sources I have found criticized on the slightest details of independence. No matter what I do, it just doesn't seem like it is enough! At the same time when doing research I see one source articles for other teams in the same league remain with not a single complaint (not to say their existence is wrong - sometimes important histories don't have a lot of sources!). Even if I am told it isn't personal and not a reflection on my work, this perceived difference in standards undeniably makes it feel personal. It is extremely discouraging to me that this topic (on a website that is the de facto answer to any question that needs explanation - even something as niche as a UK university ice hockey team) gets me put under what I believe to be an excessive amount of scrutiny compared to similar articles.
Once again, I don't blame you for simply enforcing the rules of Wikipedia as you saw broken in my initial article. And I still believe in the mission of a global encyclopedia - I'll keep improving this page (to be done as explained in my "Keep" defense below) and pages around Wikipedia. However, regardless of outcome of this AfD (but especially if this fails; I can't spend hours finding sources, formatting and writing just to keep an article I wrote from being immediately sent to the morgue - with a chance that it could be sent back regardless) it will likely be some time before I attempt to create another article. I guess my final question is: What can I do to avoid an AfD on a new article in the future? And is this article still worthy of an AfD in your mind (and if so, why?) Fastfads (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of research into the guidelines (thank you @AusLondonder and @Ravenswing for the advice and links - I see that the editorial standards of Wikipedia are higher than what was told to me in school) and spent a lot of time updating the page to what I believe would be above the minimum amount of content to reach the guidelines of general notability - and have found quite a bit of new information about the team along the way.
Point #1: One of the main problems was a lack of secondary sources as I was mainly using the main page of the BUIHA and the team's page at phoons.net - I've now done a significant amount of research into the team and have found a ton of new information about the team entirely from secondary sources ranging from the local student newspaper to the national newspapers (BBC). There even is a video from 2014 which was someone's TV reel that gave a ton of information about the team, including interviews with the founders of the club. There's now a lot more secondary sources on there.
Point #2: Relative to other team pages in the BUIHA (and to applications of the guidelines in general), the Typhoons are a strong pick to have their own page. Take, for example, the London Dragons which was originally my template for the start of this article. The entire page is summary, roster, awards, retired numbers and what universities are involved. The sources are all the University page, the website and the BUIHA website. Yet, I agree with Wikipedia's editors that as it remains up, it's a worthy article to keep in place in the history of British ice hockey even if it may need more sources as the note shows. While other pages like Oxford University Ice Hockey Club carries far more history and therefore sources, I find it exceptional to compare a team founded in 2011 to the team page of the most historic ice hockey club in Europe. Despite being founded so recently, they still have a shockingly deep history to the team, which brings me to the next point.
Point #3: The Typhoons are an notable and important subject in British university ice hockey as well as in the University of St Andrews culture and history. When I started this, I figured I'd make another team page to fill one of the missing spots on the BUIHA teams list. Yet thanks to the pressure for secondary sources, I found this team is extremely notable in university life in St Andrews - and has an extremely interesting (albeit tragic history). According to University of St Andrews, there are 11,280 students at the school right now, so there is on record just under 15% of the entire school (1500 people) attending Jonny Wookey Memorial Game. While it may not have the historical importance of something like Ice Hockey Varsity Match, attendance that high shows it is a huge event for the students of St Andrews and Scotland as a whole. The only one that seems to even come close in St Andrews would be The Scottish Varsity. Considering the difference in popularity between ice hockey and rugby in Scotland, the fact that the number of people interested is this close is an interesting fact in itself. The game is worth archiving on its own but is especially worth inclusion within the context of a team page that is so important in university ice hockey as they won the championship just 2 years ago.
Point #4: There is still significantly more content to go through. All of the sources I have posted have been from "official" newspapers and sources online, but I have not gone through the years of articles on the experience and history written by the St Andrews student newspaper "The Saint". Even right now on their front page is a new article about the experience at Jonny Wookey this year where they lost. I'm pretty busy right now (I fit in the edits and this piece in a bit of free time) but by Friday I should have a complete page with all secondary sources out there - and a pretty perfect page for Wikipedia if you allow it to stay up.
With all of this, I feel there is plenty of evidence that this article is suitable for conclusion and meets the general notability guideline. Please check out the original article with the new additions. I hope these changes (and new sources) will convince you that this article is worth inclusion. As for me, I'm going to keep working on this page when I have time and I'll be voting Keep for this page. Fastfads (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Sources are exclusively non-independent (websites of BUIHA, Phoons, St Andrews, and St Andrews student newspapers) or fail NOTNEWS (news reports on a missing student). JoelleJay (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would disagree with point #1 lightly with emphasis on the student newspaper - while there is a reliance on sources that are related (and this is considered acceptable in the case of London Dragons, Sheffield Bears, Cardiff Redhawks etc.), there still are independent sources from that student documentary video, The Tab, and most importantly the student newspaper (given it is not funded by the university - it is independent, just adjacent to the community the same way that we consider The Student independent in Edinburgh) - are all independent and direct evidence of the history of the team. If you want to quote the scores or stats, you can find all of these people exist simply through looking at Elite Prospects - but that seems like I'm source dumping just to prove a point that the first Wookey game was won 6-3. It's not like I made this team up. So I both lightly disagree with this point, but also don't see how this mixes with the general notability guideline from which this AfD is built.
In point #2, the NOTNEWS criticism, I do not understand in any way how this fits the criteria for this one. The news articles made in the name of Jonny Wookey are an integral part of the story of this hockey team's biggest event of the year and one of the primary notability reasons about them. NOTNEWS seems to be if I was using breaking news to make this entire article up - but it's an added piece to the stories of Kieran McCann and especially Jonny Wookey who both had an impact on the team - and therefore are viable sources. I would really need an explanation on the not news criticism to consider it.
Lastly, I'm going to take a piece from my looking at the many pages of AfD guidelines and precedents: AFDISNOTCLEANUP and DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP - if the style of sourcing is the problem but this is still notable and passes the guidelines, it isn't worth deleting or redirecting. Fastfads (talk) 01:05, 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) 00:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:37, 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. WP:NPOL as a widely accepted and followed guideline creates at least a strong presumption of notability for state-level legislators. The "delete" side would need compelling arguments to rebut this presumption, which they don't provide; instead we get lengthy quibbling about specific sources that is quite beside the point. Sandstein 20:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel W. Greear[edit]

Daniel W. Greear (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 is a lawyer, currently serving as a judge in the West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals - that is not a role that would make one inherently notable, so we are looking at WP:GNG. The only secondary sources in the article look like rehashed press releases, recording the fact that he was given the '2021 Legislative Staff Achievement Award' - not a notable award. The other sources appear to be primary; I don't see any better sources, WP:GNG is not met. Girth Summit (blether) 13:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This person appears to be marginally notable as a judge and former legislator and administrator. The sources cited are not the best possible, but they appear to be valid sources: the West Virginia Record is an online legal paper, and the facts that it's funded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and has a strong bias toward "tort reform" doesn't affect factual statements about judicial personnel. West Virginia MetroNews is more-or-less an online newspaper. Releases from the Governor's office or official state websites are likewise valid sources for things like appointments or awards. The nominator's statement, "I don't see any better sources" is clearly based only on what's currently cited; I was able to find the subject and some of the facts relating to his career just by searching the word "Greear" on The Herald-Dispatch, and presumably more could be found at the Charleston Gazette-Mail. So this nomination did not comply with WP:BEFORE. P Aculeius (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did Google News searches on "Daniel W. Greear" and on "Daniel Greear". The first search yielded six hits, one of them literally a press release, the others either rehashed press releases or passing mentions. The second search yielded a lot more hits, most of them seemed to be about this person, but all of the ones I looked at again seemed to be rehashed press releases announcing his appointment to some position or other. I did not directly search the archives of the Herald-Dispatch or the Charleston Gazette-Mail because I've never heard of either of them. If new page reviewers were expected to be intimately familiar with the local press sources that might be available for any given subject, we would never get anything done - I don't appreciate the suggestion that my nomination did not comply with BEFORE, and unless you can point to any actual sources that give the subject significant depth of coverage (and are not rehashed press releases) it remains my view that GNG is likely not met. The point in the comment below about NPOL being satisfied may however make that point moot. Girth Summit (blether) 10:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that new page reviewers reviewing biographies of local political figures ought to be aware of, or make themselves aware of, the local news sources that would tend to provide coverage of them, before asserting that no sources exist, and that the subjects therefore fail to be notable. A basic Google search simply isn't enough. The two papers I mentioned are the largest newspapers of record in West Virginia, so you would expect to find coverage there. I didn't even have to search "archives". I simply used the search window at the top of the paper, and typed in "Greear". There were more stories than the two I cited, but some of the others concerned the subject's candidacy in past elections, and others looked to be cumulative. There are probably more facts worthy of inclusion or citation in some of them, and as I said, other news sources that I didn't consult.
    As for "actual sources", the news sources are "actual" and satisfactory for what they state. You can't disregard them on the grounds that they're "rehashed press releases", nor can you pick through the article, deleting things that you deem to have come from a "press release" by the state's official websites or the governor's office. A "press release" issued by a person about himself would not be a particularly reliable source for most information—although presumably for his name, age, place of birth, family members—but when the governor states that X has been appointed to Y, that's entitled to be treated as an authoritative source for those facts. Not that "X is one of the greatest Y's in the history of our state", although potentially for the fact that "Governor Z praised X as 'one of the greatest Y's in the history of our state'." But the source is perfectly good for the bare facts of the appointment. You don't get to exclude entire classes of material from citation or consideration for notability or verifiability simply because not everything in them constitutes a citeable fact. You must consider what it is they're being cited for, and whether they carry sufficient authority to verify that material. P Aculeius (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, we routinely disregard sources that are clearly rehashed press releases when considering notability (as opposed to verifiability, for which they are generally fine). GNG clearly sets out that for a source to contribute towards notability, it must be (amongst other things) independent of the subject. A press release by a subject's employer or a body that they are affiliated with is not independent, and its having been rehashed by a local online newspaper that routinely reprints all press releases from that given body does not make it any more independent. If we
    Look at it this way - with all the AGF in the world, when I look at that article and its history I cannot fail to suspect a COI, or more likely UPE. A brand new account has written it, an account that has made no edits to any other article, and which did not seem to go through any learning curve when it comes to formatting citations, adding wikiproject templates etc. The account also uploads a photograph of the subject, clearly posed for and submitted as their own work, so it is reasonable to conclude that the author knows the subject, either personally or professionally. Upon reading through the article, I find no organic coverage of the subject at all, just a bunch of press releases. UPE is not a reason for deletion, but it is a reason to scrutinise an article, and I do not think that a discussion of whether or not the subject is actually notable is an unreasonable step to take as part of that process if a reviewer finds no decent sources about the subject. And FWIW, I reject your contention that a reviewer of any subject related to West Virginia needs to be personally familiar with West Viriginian news sources - we simply do not have the volunteer capacity for that, if we took that approach the NPP queue would become entirely unmanageable. Girth Summit (blether) 07:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who created the article or why is relatively unimportant, if notability can be demonstrated through reliable sources. Even a press release is a good source for "X was appointed to Y position on Z date". And anything released by the governor's office or the state's official sites is entitled to full weight for its factual statements: "X is a member of Y", etc. Major newspapers of record are entitled to the presumption that their stories have been factually vetted, even if they might have borrowed their wording or structure from press releases—cause to groan about the state of modern journalism, if they did, but until shown to be inaccurate in some fashion, the stories can and should be regarded as accurate.
    In this case, two news stories in a reliable, normal paper are both cited and linked to for key facts that go toward notability: the subject's having served as chief of staff for the House of Delegates, being appointed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals in 2021, being appointed to the position of Chief Judge through 2023, and having a term expiring in 2026. These are the most important facts in demonstrating notability. Other facts asserted in the article may be provable through other sources (The Blue Book at least will verify his service as a member of the legislature), but are not necessary to show that the subject is notable. Some of the sources, particularly those about awards, may indeed be "puff pieces", and the facts asserted not especially important (on the other hand, we can generally take the subject's word for things like his name, date of birth, what high school he attended, who his family members are, and for this sort of thing even "puff pieces" are fine).
    But this is AfD: the question is whether the subject is notable, not whether all of the facts mentioned are important, or whether all of the sources cited are the best. Those can be dealt with through the normal editing process; deletion is not cleanup. And I stand by my position that in dealing with the notability of local subjects, such as state politicians, local sources should be searched for; you cannot rely on global searches such as a Google search for someone's name, and conclude that someone or something isn't notable because they don't have enough of a Google presence. You don't need to know all of the possible sources in advance; just have the ability to search for or find out what some of them are, and see whether any of them cover the subject in a way that supports notability. P Aculeius (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you're getting the point I'm making. I'm not talking about whether press releases are reliable, I'm talking about whether they are independent. Press releases in and of themselves do not contribute towards notability for the purposes of GNG, even if they are rehashed in media outlets, because they are not independent of the subject. I'm not saying that they can't be used to establish straightforward facts, I'm talking strictly about whether they can be used to establish notability via WP:GNG - they can not be so used. Based on the sources currently in the article, I do not see a GNG pass because of their dearth of independent sources, and my search for better sources did not reveal any.
    Having said all that, and as I conceded in my first response, the point in the !vote below about NPOL probably renders all this moot - his one-year membership of West Virginia House of Delegates probably gives a route to presumed notability, so a GNG pass is not required. I would be content for this to be closed as keep based on an NPOL pass, and for us to get on with the job of trimming the unsourced trivia and puffy editorialising introduced by the original author. Girth Summit (blether) 15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be confused about the general notability guideline, if you're claiming that press releases by someone other than the subject of an article can't be cited because they're "not independent of the subject", and that "media outlets" (i.e. news sources) that rely to one degree or another on them aren't independent either, and can't be used to demonstrate notability. That's an absurd reading: the policy is saying that someone's own press releases aren't independent sources about that person, not that no announcements are independent of anything merely because they're released directly to the press!
    The governor's announcement that he's appointing someone to the bench is entirely independent of the person being appointed, and is not only a reliable source, but is the best possible source. It's impossible for any other source—such as a newspaper or television news broadcast—to report on such a thing without relying on official sources. Your argument seems to be that both official sources and anything based on them must be excluded from consideration.
    Similarly, the state's official sites indicating who personnel are, what positions they hold or what their terms might be are entitled to be treated as independent of the people listed—nobody is sitting there entering their own name and hoping that no-one notices! It simply makes no sense whatever to disregard all official sources for facts that demonstrate notability: being a state employee does not make the state itself and everything based on what the state says invalid for demonstrating that someone is notable! P Aculeius (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IS explicitly lists press releases from a person's employer as an example of a non-independent source. They're reliable, for sure, and using them to add extra details in an article that also contains multiple genuinely independent sources isn't a problem, but when those are the only types of sources that can be found it becomes a problem: we don't host articles about every person whose appointment is announced by their employers, even if that appointment goes on to be published in local news media. If we did, we would likely have a lot more articles about head teachers, hospital officials and minor public officials than we do. Girth Summit (blether) 09:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When the governor announces that he's appointed someone to an office, that is absolutely entitled to be treated as an authoritative statement as to the fact of the appointment, irrespective of whether you call it a "press release", and regardless of the fact that the governor is the "employer" of most people in state government. Likewise, a state agency website or directory is authoritative as to the names and terms of its personnel, even though those personnel aren't "independent" of the agency. The idea that you can't cite official sources of information because they're not sufficiently independent is so absurd that it shouldn't even require a reply. P Aculeius (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Per WP:NPOL as he served in the West Virginia House of Delegates. Central and Adams (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I opened each and every reference and they are far short of supporting GNG. NPOL isn't a slam dunk it says "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" - and this is were we're at. Desertarun (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, he's an elected state-level politician, and thereby notable per se. Central and Adams (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless we are going to re-litigate WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:NPOL, a state legislator is always per se notable. There are enough sources to prove the claims. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 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. Sandstein 20:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rowen's Arcade[edit]

Rowen's Arcade (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)

Small, local shopping arcade with no obvious notability. Appears to be WP:MILL, based mostly original research and the few sources provided are either deadlinks, primary sources (Web pages of tenants), real estate listings or limited to very local media coverage. Has been previously tagged for notability, but tagging was reverted/removed without discussion on talk page or obvious improvement. Dfadden (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: "Guy builds a house and other stuff" in an article about a shopping plaza is not really what we're looking for. This would be more suited for some local history project. I don't see notability with what's given and I don't find sourcing about this place. Delete for any lack of notability or lack of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Australia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As written, the article's sourcing fails GNG - I do see a couple articles in there that I would count but they're basically from the same event (the sale) in spite of being two years apart, and another potentially sort-of-okay source is now a dead link. Considering this is a long standing business I think that a historical newspaper search might be able to save the article, but I've only been able to do that for places in Melbourne and to a lesser extent WA, not sure where to look to save this one. To help whoever is closing, I can't make a good keep !vote even though I'd like to and can't be sure sources exist, so count this as a reluctant delete unless someone performs a historical source search. SportingFlyer T·C 04:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I conducted a quick search of newspaper archives via the National Library's Trove search engine. I found three articles from the Canberra Times (which is beyond local in scope and would be considered WP:RS) that date back to the 1980s, but these are almost entirely about the Funland amusement park - there are very trivial mentions of the shopping arcade here [24], [25] and [26] but nowhere near the standard required to be considered WP:SIGCOV. The only other references to Rowen's Arcade in Ulladulla are notices of business premises for lease and routine tax assessment filing, which is all very WP:MILL.It would be a stretch too far in my opinion to consider articles about the sale of the business as independent - see the examples of dependant coverage in WP:NORG. Maybe you could build a case if you have full access to the Milton-Ulladulla Times and South Coast Register articles, but they are behind a paywall and I'm not inclined to subscribe to these papers to read 10 year old articles to save an article that is borderline at best. Even then, these are hardly national publications that establish broader notability, rather local newspapers based in Ulladulla and Nowra with very limited circulation outside of the Shoalhaven.
    I guess an argument could be made that Funland itself may be notable (although I can really only find coverage in a single RS), but that would be better suited to a standalone article if someone wanted to create it. That said, it appears the new owners of this Funland have used the name to expand it into a larger chain and the only real association this company has with Rowen's Arcade is as a tenant and the adoption of the historical name. Dfadden (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 12:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tawal[edit]

Tawal (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 don't see this meets the criteria laid out in WP:NCORP The article relies on unreliable sources and press releases, and therefore fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:42, 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 01:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandhan Mutual Fund[edit]

Bandhan Mutual Fund (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)

Trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. Citations are collections of paid news which are highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The primary issue arises from the editor's attempt to pass off two financial products (exchange traded funds), namely BANDHAN S&P BSE SENSEX ETF (BSE:540154) and BANDHAN NIFTY 50 ETF (NSE:IDFNIFTYYET), as company's own stock market listings, which they are not, thereby failing to adhere to WP:LISTED. A comparable effort was observed in the AFD discussion of Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance, wherein the company tried to be part of NIFTY 50 without proper validation. In a nutshell, the company falls short when it comes to meeting WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. To put it mildly, they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a banjo and their depth is about as shallow as a puddle in the Sahara. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 29 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! 11:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Universidad Del Pacífico – Ecuador[edit]

Universidad Del Pacífico – Ecuador (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 article has been erased several times on Spanish Wikipedia (and is nor creation protected) for repeated efforts to promotionally recreate it. This suggests serious WP:PROMO risk. In addition, the sources here aren't notable, all are either WP:ROUTINE, or lacking WP:DEPTH. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The Universidad Del Pacífico – Ecuador article deserves to remain on Wikipedia because it contributes to the encyclopedia's mission of providing comprehensive information about educational institutions around the world

Misunderstanding of notability: The repeated deletion attempts might be due to a misunderstanding of the university's notability. We should strive to improve articles with proper sources rather than deletion.

Improve the sources: If the sources used previously were not notable, we can find alternative sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria. There are plenty of reputable Ecuadorian news outlets about the university's achievements, programs, or events, even though most of these would be reptitive and not part of an encyclopedic entry.

Scholarly articles, news coverage, and government websites can be good starting points for finding reliable sources.

Comprehensiveness of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to be comprehensive. Deleting an article about a university in Ecuador limits the information available to users about higher education in the country. The following List of universities in Ecuador used to include articles for each of the accredited institutions in the country. As of April 29th 2024 it seems that most of these articles have been deleted.

Notability

In general, most legitimate colleges and universities are notable[1] and should be included on Wikipedia. For notability of sub-articles, see relevant advice below. ... It is also important to bear in mind that anyone can set up an institution and call it a "college" or, in many countries, a "university", so that it is essential to be clear whether an institution warrants inclusion in Wikipedia based on that institution's use of these terms.

Government websites listing UPACIFICO and other universities as an accredited institution or mentioning its programs. Were part of the article prior to edits on April 29 2024.

Enhancing the Article's Quality:

A collective effort can be made to find and add high-quality sources that meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Despite this information being deleted because it was in "ugly tables"The article's content can be expanded to include information about the university's: History and mission Academic programs and faculty expertise Research activities and achievements Student life and campus facilities Accreditation status

Addressing Promotional Concerns:

We can collaborate to ensure the article presents a neutral and objective viewpoint. Promotional language can be replaced with factual descriptions of the university's academics, research, and student life. Editors can focus on providing verifiable information about the university's history, faculty, programs, and accreditation status.

With regards to the concern regarding repeated promotional recreation on the Spanish Wikipedia, this shouldn't automatically lead to deletion on the English version as the translation of this article into spanish does automatically reflect the existance of the article in wikipedia.es. The editing communities on each language version have some autonomy.

Independent Efforts: I translated the article into Spanish, demonstrating it wasn't a mere copy-paste attempt. Additionally, you mentioned finding the article created by other editors, further suggesting independent interest in the university. In my last edit on the Spanish Wikipedia my edit focused on adding a recognition which I had added to wikipedia.en, not promotional language, this led to the pages deletion, and blocking of my wikipedia.es account. Let me reiterate that wikipedia.es has a delitionist policy rather than a broader inclusionist perspective regarding knowledge.

Inconsistent Treatment: If you check [Universidades de Ecuador] All universities in Ecuador have entries on the Spanish Wikipedia. The Universidad Del Pacífico – Ecuador which has been deleted (and now reroutes to the English entry) seems inconsistent with this practice.

Proposal for Moving Forward:

Perhaps a communication channel can be established between the Spanish and English Wikipedia editors to discuss the university and ensure consistent treatment. I am more than willing to translate the Univerity entries in Spanish back into English in order to once again have a List of universities in Ecuador with entries to the different Universtites.

HarveyPrototype (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Bias

The deletion of the Universidad Del Pacífico – Ecuador article, along with the removal of articles about universities in Ecuador, raises concerns about potential biases in Wikipedia's coverage of educational institutions, particularly those outside of Western contexts.

Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and verifiability is essential, but it's also crucial to recognize and address biases that may exist in content coverage. Systemic biases, including geographic bias, can inadvertently shape the information available on Wikipedia and affect its representativeness.

By deleting articles about universities in Ecuador, Wikipedia may unintentionally perpetuate systemic biases and contribute to an incomplete representation of global educational systems and institutions.

Moving forward, it's important for Wikipedia editors to be mindful of these biases and strive for balanced, comprehensive coverage that reflects the diversity of human knowledge and experience. This includes efforts to address gaps in coverage, particularly in underrepresented regions and topics.

Rather than deleting articles outright, collaborative efforts can be made to improve sourcing, address promotional content, and ensure that articles accurately reflect the notability and significance of their subjects. By actively working to mitigate biases and promote inclusivity, Wikipedia can better fulfill its mission as a free and comprehensive encyclopedia for all.--HarveyPrototype (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Wikipedia:College and university article advice". Wikipedia.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 11:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All this is fine, but there are no sources about the school that we can use. Being on a list isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite what "College and university article advice" says, the actual notability guidelines do have requirements beyond being a legitimate university. It looks like the advice page may be a tad out of date. (Also there's no particular requirement to be consistent with the Spanish Wikipedia, they can do what they want). -- D'n'B-t -- 12:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument raises a valid concern about the potential misalignment between the "College and university article advice" and the actual notability guidelines for organizations and companies.
    Regarding consistency with the Spanish Wikipedia, you rightly point out that there's no strict requirement for alignment between language versions. However, considering the deletion of entries for most Ecuadorian universities on the English Wikipedia while they remain on the Spanish Wikipedia, there's a question of ensuring comprehensive coverage and accessibility of information for English-speaking users interested in Ecuadorian higher education.
    In light of this, the proposal to translate the Spanish entries into English addresses the challenge of limited information availability and supports Wikipedia's mission of providing free, accessible knowledge to all. By ensuring that English-speaking users have access to comprehensive information about Ecuadorian universities, we uphold Wikipedia's goal of being a global repository of knowledge. HarveyPrototype (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sure it exists, but sourcing from a list of "50 best xxx" and interviews aren't what we're looking for... This is PROMO. I can't find anything beyond confirmation that the place exists. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to your concerns about sourcing, I'd like to draw attention to a component of the article regarding recognitions, which was previously deleted by another editor. This content can currently be found on the talk page Talk:Universidad Del Pacífico – Ecuador. While it may not fully address all sourcing concerns, it provides additional information that contributes to the understanding of the university's standing and recognition. HarveyPrototype (talk) 13:18, 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 withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellicott Dredges[edit]

Ellicott Dredges (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)

It exists, but I don't think it has the significance or coverage to meet N. Boleyn (talk) 12:19, 29 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! 11:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hi @Boleyn: I was starting on the cat:nn list after a few weeks away and came across this. Are they any good

I think its likely notable, give its age at 139 years. They're is likely mountains of coverage. scope_creepTalk 08:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw nomination I think you are right, scope creep, those results are much better than I found. Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 12:09, 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 after nominator witdrawining the nom. (non-admin closure) FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MIAX Pearl Equities[edit]

MIAX Pearl Equities (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:NCORP. References are company news and routine annoucements. scope_creepTalk 11:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't agree with this nomination.
1. Statement is untrue. I have included references from Financial Times meeting general notability criteria as outlined in WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIGCOV.
2. This is also balanced with other sources such as The Royal Gazette, and another company's press release, meeting WP:SECONDARY and WP:IS criteria.
3. Remaining primary sources, press releases and company pages, beyond that are stylistic choices of the author's own, but sufficiency is met even if those references were removed.
4. All other US stock exchanges, including smaller ones such as Long-Term Stock Exchange, and Investors Exchange already have their own pages.
5. Crucially, Consolidated Tape Association and Unlisted Trading Privileges have long pointed to each of these exchanges' pages for WP:POFR, and only MIAX Pearl Equities remains redirected to its holding company Miami International Holdings.
- Cara Wellington (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For avoidance of doubt, I have added WP:RS and non-business news from Wall Street Journal and S&P Global.
- Cara Wellington (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got a bit distracted looking at Long-Term Stock Exchange, oops. But I took a quick squiz at the ProQuest results, unfortunately could not find anything there either. I'm sorry to say that the WP:ORGDEPTH requirements are a bit stricter than what's available, and it's quite rare for routine coverage of launches to go beyond WP:ORGTRIV. Unfortunately, delete. (Also, full disclosure, I only got about 6 pages in before it started showing the regulatory filings again, so I did not review the full 2748 results ProQuest gave me, only slightly over a fifth of that, but I do not anticipate it making a material difference) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to be reviewing a possible merge instead per CNMall at the other one. Not entirly convinced the section in Glob. Fin. J. meets the relevant criterion for independance of content but it's... something at least. Available via the TWL bundle access to ScienceDirect for anyone with 500/6mo who wants to read it themselves. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't recommend a merge. This would be inconsistent with how exchange articles have been written for almost the entirety of Wikipedia - many of which have shown far less "independence of content" and depth of references than the arbitrary threshold you're applying here. See for example:
    Further, exchanges frequently change hands and this ends up becoming unmaintainable if you're constantly merging them upstream even after they've established a level of independence. I've still yet to help clean up NYSE Euronext and Euronext but it's not going to be an easy effort. Cara Wellington (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review.
    1. Could you reconsider your opinion if you search for "Miami Exchange" or "MIAX" instead? "MIAX Pearl Equities" is the formal entity name of the stock exchange as per regulatory filings, and I have followed this convention. However, the exchange is more commonly referred to as "MIAX", which unfortunately conflates with MIH's naming for options exchanges and causes this confusion.
    2. I made the above search on ProQuest and don't see a problem meeting WP:SIGCOV given the extensive coverage in Financial Times, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, Barron's, Bloomberg that not only relate to the company itself, but also rivals Nasdaq and CBOE.
    3. Further, a national stock exchange's history appears to meet WP:ORGDEPTH guidelines, which I cite:
    • "An encyclopedia entry giving an overview of the history of an organization".
    • "Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience".
    4. I should point out that deletion would be an inconsistent application of guidelines, considering similar or less coverage of other national exchanges found on ProQuest, some of which have much less volume or are even defunct altogether:
    - Cara Wellington (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MIAX was the search term I used for ProQuest. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. That explains: for some reason, your search only yields 2,748 results but I see 12,960 results for MIAX. It appears that this inconsistency is because ProQuest is not a WP:REPUTABLE or reliable source. I wrote a Python script to scan all of such 12,960 results for MIAX and also the 96 "Newspapers" entries returned and it appears not to index links from many reliable sources, such as these ones:
    Let me know if you can corroborate these findings, e.g. with screenshots of the 6 pages you've seen or the payload returned from the proquest.com/resultsol/ endpoint that I can run a script on, or if there's anything else I can do to help. In any case, I'll go ahead to add some of these references to the article to resolve your WP:ORGTRIV concerns. Thanks again.
    - Cara Wellington (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ProQuest is a collection of databases, it doesn't really index things the same way a web search engine would. Most of my search results would have been from ProQuest Central, because historical newspapers aren't very likely to be of interest (I also have access to One Academic, but, again). After excluding The Federal Register and a few other publications, you should find the number quite comparable. Also, I'm fairly sure scraping would violate something in my TOU somewhere, and I would rather not get in trouble with my institutions, or my institution in trouble with ProQuest.
    Also not sure how you expect the sources in your most recent comment to meet WP:ORGDEPTH where the others didn't. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I'm unable to replicate your methodology and will invite the next editor who visits this discussion to do so, because "quite comparable" is a vague quantifier. 12,960 or 2,748 - those two numbers are too drastically different and cannot be dismissed as "quite comparable". I've also given you concrete, specific links which are not tracked in this tool or apparently outdated collection of databases.
    • I've also identified the two specific clauses of WP:ORGDEPTH guidelines that I specifically sought to address, in point 3 above. This seems to be a case of WP:THIS or WP:THAT or WP:THEOTHER without an attempted interpretation of what WP:ORGDEPTH means.
    • Trivially, one has likely heard of Reuters, Bloomberg, and CNBC, however this is the first time I've heard of ProQuest. The latter appears to be unreliable and not a meaningful measure of WP:NCORP or WP:ORGDEPTH. So if you intend on admitting WP:NOTRS for relevance, I hope you agree that the burden of proof is on you, not myself, to show how you expect your sources to matter to this discussion.
    - Cara Wellington (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Next you'll tell me you've never heard of Gale or EBSCO either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. My contributions are mostly in finance, CS, math, which also aligns with my professional background. We use different research databases in our area and so I find this is a strange barometer of ORGDEPTH, in the same way you wouldn't use a search on Nature or NEJM to indicate GNG on a political person of interest.
    I'm sure they're meaningful in your area of subject matter expertise and that's great. I'm not questioning your expertise, just pointing out how your methodology appears flawed and unscientific, so we can make the editorial process a little bit better for the next person who comes along here with an article in finance.
    There's no WP acronym to express my respect for people who're trying to make the world a better place. So as critical as I sound, it doesn't mean my respect for you is diminished. You have a hard enough job patrolling the AfD queue and I don't mean to make life more difficult for you.
    - Cara Wellington (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are pretty solid secondary sources. I wish to see you more at Afd. Nomination Withdrawn. scope_creepTalk 08:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt withdrawal of your nomination. Would you kindly review your nomination in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miami International Holdings again if you have the time as well? The same editor has also provided similar analysis of the coverage on the parent company, and I've also tried my best to improve the article to meet guidelines.
- Cara Wellington (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is a WP:SPA. scope_creepTalk 08:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to George Albert Smith (filmmaker)#Selected filmography. Liz Read! Talk! 19:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Quick Shave and Brush-up[edit]

A Quick Shave and Brush-up (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 that this is a notable film. Can be redirected to George Albert Smith (filmmaker)#Selected filmography. Fram (talk) 07:53, 29 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! 11:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to William Kennedy Dickson filmography. Liz Read! Talk! 19:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ladysmith – Naval Brigade Dragging 4.7 Guns into Ladysmith[edit]

Ladysmith – Naval Brigade Dragging 4.7 Guns into Ladysmith (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 indication that this is a notable film (well, a 31 second static shot). Apparently not only have we no idea who actually made it (just the producre), but we also don't know what is being shown according to this. Perhaps some list for this and many similar non-notable shorts may be feasible, but at the moment I don't see a good redirect target. Perhaps William Kennedy Dickson filmography, which gives an idea of the number of such ultrashort films that were made (and is clearly incomplete, as e.g. this very one isn't on that list). Fram (talk) 07:42, 29 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! 11:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

To the IP editor, for a BLP (biography of a living person), we need more significant coverage than IMDb listings which are not considered a reliable source. Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Jay Glen[edit]

Rick Jay Glen (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 sources at all, lacks notability, extreme amounts of fluff - looks very much like just a self-promo page. Hornpipe2 (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • (comment) having some doubts over whether the IPv6 editor, and also the user "rickory", have a conflict of interest going on with this Hornpipe2 (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the user Rickory and Rick Jay Glen himself. I don't actually care if the article gets deleted. I'm happy to provide whatever resources might be needed, but this article was created several years ago when we (at Fantawild) created the "Boonie Bears" and "Fantawild Animation" Wiki articles and I've only edited a few times that I can recall. I'm not here to debate whether or not my life and career are accurate or worthy of a Wikipedia article. It's irrelevant to me. Leave it up or don't. I'm indifferent. I don't care.
    It's not something I keep up with anyway. But if it looks like a self-promo page, just know that actors use IMDb to network and display verified credits, not an "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit. Rickory (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources added. Content has been edited and cut down to remove fluff. 2601:644:9280:7C80:B58D:218D:9C58:17C8 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 11:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete of the sources that aren't IMDB only one actually mentions the subject in passing. Others don't mention the subject at all, leaving all of the biographical parts of the article unverified. Agree lacks notability. Orange sticker (talk) 15:33, 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 Esteghlal F.C.. ✗plicit 12:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esteghlal B F.C.[edit]

Esteghlal B F.C. (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)

Empty article without any sources or material Shahin (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. There is consensus to not delete, but a split between keep and merge. This should be hashed out in a talk page merger discussion, not another AfD. Sandstein 20:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlus USA[edit]

Atlus USA (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)

Reads like a video game essay, insufficient standalone notability. Only source I found that might have sufficient coverage is the Game Informer one, suggesting merger with Atlus. IgelRM (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. IgelRM (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems quite notable, cites over 77 sources, many of which are secondary. I will note that if language is an issue, just tag it. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could have tagged for style but generally interviews, which are a large part of the sources, don't give sufficient notability. IgelRM (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A fairly in-depth article that explains its significance outside of the parent company; several dozen hits when looking at a cursory Google Books search. I do not see a strong reason to delete. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am assuming you are referring to "notable in its localization approach in preserving as much of the original", but I struggle to find a notable source for that and mentioned Game Informer article doesn't say it. It would help me if you could pick an example book with significant coverage. IgelRM (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutral: I know I'm biased, and if things go another way I'll accept the decision. If style and writing is the issue, then it needs a rewrite. Or maybe trimming down in places like that huge game list. --ProtoDrake (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Biased means article creator here for outsiders) It only makes sense to rewrite if it is notable. The game list seems fine although ideally it should be sourced and maybe spun-out to a separate page. IgelRM (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 03:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Somewhat off-topic but the name in the lead was changed from "USA to "West" (as well as on the Atlus article), which does not appear to an official name. IgelRM (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, concur with others below, fails WP:THREE, see discussion on my talk Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Atlus. After (briefly) looking through the 77 sources and Google Books, I'm simply not seeing significant coverage of Atlus USA in reliable, secondary, independent sources. The article clearly has plenty of sources, but they're all trivial mentions (not significant coverage) or interviews (not secondary or independent), plus a few primary sources from Atlus. A few sources do border on significant coverage of Atlus, the parent company, but not Atlus USA, the subject of this article. The only source that is unequivocally significant coverage of Atlus USA is Game Informer, as mentioned above. Will gladly change my mind if anyone can point to two more sources that actually demonstrate SIGCOV. Woodroar (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Deliberating a possible merge: History section (except staff section, which does not appear notable) to Atlus; Localization approach section (mostly about localizing SMT) to Megami Tensei; Publishing section and third-party list into an additional section on List of Atlus games. IgelRM (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes sense to me! Woodroar (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors are free to merge whatever content they want to other articles but XFDcloser can only handle one Merge target article in closing a discussion. Would that be Atlus? Liz Read! Talk! 17:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, yes; although merging most into Atlus doesn't appear feasible to me, so perhaps redirect to Atlus would be a more accurate AFD close while still preserving for future editors. IgelRM (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Functionally, a merge or redirect is the same result for the topic article. Just a matter of "review for mergeable content first" really. -- ferret (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I've been going back and forth on this one, but Woodroar more or less said where I ended up. The GameInformer is a huge in-depth source, but as I went through the rest, I simply could not find anything else. A few passing mentions in relation to games ("And Atlus USA is translating" and the like), and many of the non-interviews/non-primaries seemed to not mention Atlus USA at all. Calls for the !Keeps to provide at minimum three are unanswered at this time. -- ferret (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm just curious, is there policy/precedent for not spinning out regional branches like this? Nintendo of America for example doesn't have a standalone article even though it seemingly could. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument for or against deletion, I'm just wondering if there was some previous consensus on this. CurlyWi (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think ideally every single article is as comprehensive as possible, so I would need to ask why (maybe because of the section length?) and what a spin-out would improve. IgelRM (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. The article doesn't have enough in-depth sources to exist on it's own, most articles are about the Japanese developer. Swordman97 talk to me 03:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 11:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Seems quite notable per WP:NORG. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind identifying the three best sources demonstrating notability for Atlus USA? Woodroar (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really really want to change my position, but no one has provided a single source other than Game Informer that shows in-depth independnent sigcov. -- ferret (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It currently fails WP:NCORP. I looked at the first block of references in detail and quickly looked at the second block. The first block is mostly made up of profiles with no byline, routine business news, PR and interviews with leading folk in the company, none of which passes WP:SIRS or WP:ORGIND. The second block is just equally as bad. It is completely non-notable. Possible small merge to main article, a sentence or two at most as they're is nothing to support anything bigger. scope_creepTalk 09:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article seems notable, per WP:GNG, but not per WP:NCORP. I searched through articles about the company for about 30 minutes, I found a lot of articles about Sega's acquisition of the company, the parent company's bankruptcy, the CEO retiring, but nothing 'about' the company. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really sorry but, as has been repeatedly requested... can you provide at least three such sources that show independent in-depth coverage of Atlus USA? Your !vote seems to indicate you found information on the parent company but couldn't find any further sources about this company? -- ferret (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. A content fork, the refs are all trivial mentions. Desertarun (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Infrastructure. Liz Read! Talk! 19:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public infrastructure[edit]

Public infrastructure (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)

Merge to Infrastructure.Most infrastructure around the world is public.There is no need to create additional article just for public infrastructure. Moreover, the article is not long and the content can be completely covered by Infrastructure.日期20220626 (talk) 00:45, 29 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! 10:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom although I believe this should have been discussed as a merger rather than brought to AfD. Mooonswimmer 19:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I proposed merging on the talk page, probably fewer people would participate in the discussion. 日期20220626 (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:MERGEINIT: "If the need for a merge is obvious, editors can be bold and simply do it." I also vote merge and think you could have done this on your own if if people didn't see the talk page. Reywas92Talk 15:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bierman[edit]

Adam Bierman (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 I can see, seeking delete and redirect rather than just BLAR due to promotional nature and it being most likely UPE spam. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:SPA. scope_creepTalk 08:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classic UPE article non-notable ceo. A WP:BEFORE didn't find much. Several interviews in the context of the company. The references, again the first two blocks are more to do with company than him. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 08:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:46, 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 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Dubai[edit]

List of songs about Dubai (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 deletion reason is the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad, Madras, Oslo etc.: The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context - the mishmash sources or the songs' lack of standalone notability don't help. Geschichte (talk) 08:44, 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 speedy delete‎. A7 Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nisar Ahmed (politician)[edit]

Nisar Ahmed (politician) (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. Didn't win the election, never elected into an office. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Looks like the subject might not meet WP:POLITICIAN since there's no record of them being elected to parliament. Also, not seeing much coverage, so not even passes WN:GNG either. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: This should be speedily deleted and the author should be warned\blocked as after the AFD of Hakeem Nisar Ahmad, the author of that article created the same article under different name space. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But the author is an admin. You can't really say anything to them without consequences, you know? —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ROFL. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7. Mccapra (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Non-notable candidate. The text is borderline incomprehensible. "He respends the halka number of PP-22 Chakwal-cum-Talagang". He whats the what now??? Not even clear that the Google news hits are all talking about the same person. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: per A7. Fails the GNG, fails WP:POLITICIAN, incomprehensible, sets forth no claim upon which notability can be asserted. It doesn't end with this editor, does it? Ravenswing 02:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Ahmed Yousef. Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House of Wisdom for Conflict Resolution & Governance[edit]

House of Wisdom for Conflict Resolution & Governance (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)

Delete or merge into Ahmed Yousef. Fails WP:NORG. Only fleeting mentions of this organization in RS, and an official testifying before the UK Parliament does not establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Lane (actor)[edit]

Alex Lane (actor) (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 does not appear to possess roles that adequately satisfy WP:NCREATIVE. Most sources currently present in the article say the same thing, in which subject is mentioned once to declare being a co-producer. I cannot find satisfactory GNG sourcing online. —Sirdog (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NCREATIVE, and WP:NACTOR. I just removed a bizarre and hyperbolic uncited claim from this article after searching for verification online. The rest of the article is all either run-of-the-mill, uncited, or about items not yet aired or screened. The only coverage more than two words long is this Deadline article which seems to repeat Lane's own self-submitted PR self-description without even fact-checking. [30]. Persingo (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I hope editors can add some of this information into the article so it can be expanded a bit? Liz Read! Talk! 17:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Məlikzadə[edit]

Məlikzadə (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 one sentence page that fails WP:GNG. It has been like that for around 10 years now. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Asia, and Azerbaijan. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On the map, it shows up north of Gülüzənbinə and has enough houses that I don't doubt (contrary to about a hundred AFDs on US locations) that it's populated. However, they are very close to eachother and a case might be made that these are constituent parts of a larger village. Geschichte (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Geschichte: in the two articles I found, Məlikzadə and Gülüzənbinə were mentioned as 2 different villages. The frustrating thing is that most likely a very different spelling would have been used in Soviet and pre-Soviet times, I can't find how it was written then. --Soman (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for a village, there is no requirement for much more info that what is available in the article. It's a village, it has coords, it is located in a municipality. Here there is mention (WP:RS?) on Gypsy population being resettled in Melikzade in by Shah Abbas the Great as a measure to suppress local rebellions, seems it is was of the main sites of Gypsy population in Azerbaijan. [31] confirms same point, and affirms that they are Persian speakers. --Soman (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • add Keep, a separate village should be ok for notability per WP:NPLACE. --Soman (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Separate village. Satisfies WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: meets NPLACE by virtue of being a legally recognised, populated settlement. That critereon could be looked at, but not on an individual basis. -- D'n'B-t -- 11:53, 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 List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KQDF-LD[edit]

KQDF-LD (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 does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. This was actually one that I myself slid in some extra sources in back when the whole HC2 mass destruction thing was happening. Still think it deserves to stay kinda. Danubeball (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen Killing Kings[edit]

The Queen Killing Kings (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 has some sources, but I could not find sustained coverage and to me it appears that it doesn't meet the criteria laid out at WP:NMUSIC. I think the community should decide whether this band merits having their own page. Keivan.fTalk 05:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Maxwell[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Angela Maxwell (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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:58, 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) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Lomer[edit]

Gerhard Lomer (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)

Nothing shows the notability. Of the three sources; two are written by the subject and the other by their employer. -- NotCharizard 🗨 03:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- NotCharizard 🗨 03:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Canada, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    keep I have added a number of citations. There are many, many more available.
    A BEFORE search, if one was done, would have revealed numerous sources about the article subject. For example, this search[32] should have been a clue that notability would be shown. I used archive links so there wouldn't be a paywall issue. Per WP:NEXISTS even without citations in the article this nomination would have been without foundation. Oblivy (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the quote from a reliable source "undoubtedly the single most important individual in the history of Canadian library education" is enough to show notability unless there are significant reasons to doubt the independence. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    McNally wrote that in 1996, and at the time he was chair of the Canadian Library Association. It looks like Quebec Library Association (of which Lomer was honorary president until 1970) did not become a member of the rebooted national group until 2016. So even though McNally certainly has some pro-librarian bias I don't see anything that would call his independence, or that of the publisher, into question. Oblivy (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG based on current content plus found more on a newspapers.com search (for instance [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]). KylieTastic (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuga Labs[edit]

Yuga Labs (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 stub's information on Yuga Labs' ownership of Bored Ape and CryptoPunks NFTs, doxxing of its founders, and new CEO hiring are all covered in more detail at the existing Bored Ape article. I propose redirecting this article to Bored Ape (which was how Pppery originally created the article in June 2022), as the latter already has more information on the company. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 03:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmada[edit]

Ahmada (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)

lack of notability Minmarion (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CD Country[edit]

CD Country (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 does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 19:50, 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 02:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Melo e Castro[edit]

Paul Melo e Castro (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)

Orphan article with no evidence of notability. Lecturer does not meet WP:PROF and an h-Index of 4 means the research output had little impact. Tried to find book reviews to see if the subject could meet WP:NAUTHOR but I was only able to find this one and I don't think it's enough to qualify for notability. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV as well. Contributor892z (talk) 17:44, 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 02:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retain. There is a misunderstanding here, on at least two counts. Firstly, the attainments of the subject are not as a Lecturer or in a British context, but rather in the field of Indo-Portuguese (and Portuguese) translations, and in the Lusophone world. Secondly, since the article is of niche and specialised interest (from a friend not many might understand or appreciate), it has not been updated for long. Melo e Castro's recent attainments have been overlooked in this listing. Have made some updates, please note. Fredericknoronha (talk)
@Fredericknoronha: looks like you have an undisclosed WP:COI as you mentioned you are a friend of the subject. Is that correct? Contributor892z (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do not have the citations for WP:PROF nor the reviews of his books needed for WP:AUTHOR, and nothing in the article even hints at any other possible notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see a possible notability claim beyond WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO, which he doesn't appear to meet. I'm sympathetic to the idea that he is notable as a translator in a particular niche, ie Lusophone works in Goa. But I'm not seeing any secondary coverage of him from that angle. I agree with David Eppstein that there is no prof/author notability claim here. -- asilvering (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 17:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Park Scholarships[edit]

Park Scholarships (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 is not independently notable (and notability is not inherited from its unquestionably notable parent organization). ElKevbo (talk) 21:57, 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 01:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I have not found significant coverage of this scholarship in reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to JAARS#JAARS Base. Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaars-Townsend Airport[edit]

Jaars-Townsend Airport (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 private airport. Coverage in secondary sources is nil. Could be redirected to JAARS. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this article does not meet the notability criteria then I second Mangoe’s suggestion L.arlanda27 (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Fick[edit]

Jacques Fick (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)

Poorly sourced rugby BLP; subject made one pro appearance. Having a hard time finding the necessary sourcing to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Squires[edit]

Shaun Squires (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 BLP that fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find much of anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Best thing that came up was three sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana University Informatics & Communications Technology Complex[edit]

Indiana University Informatics & Communications Technology Complex (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)

Most substantial source cited is a student newspaper article from time of construction. Further searches suggest that neither original construction or recent developments appear to have generated significant independent coverage. All coverage is from university or contractor press releases, or passing mentions as location of various departments. No indication building meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2024-04 ✗ deleted
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tythan Adams[edit]

Tythan Adams (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. JTtheOG (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 15:24, 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) 17:54, 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) 01:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rome Chambers[edit]

Rome Chambers (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)

Played a single, unremarkable game over 120 years ago. No other information can be found on him and the MLB's own website has the exact same info. Extremely doubtful that this player meets notability standards. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Washington USA[edit]

Miss Washington USA (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 article is not ready for main space and should be draftified, at least. The references that exist do not add anything beyond individuals who won pageants in two recent years out of a claimed more than 50 years of events. There is not one reference for the pageant organization itself even to back up the claimed ownership or year it was formed. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Shaquille O'Neal[edit]

List of career achievements by Shaquille O'Neal (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 an indiscriminate collection of trivia that is a clear WP:NOTSTATS violation. The most pertinent info is already in the main article so there is no need for any type of merge. Let'srun (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Kevin Durant[edit]

List of career achievements by Kevin Durant (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 a collection of indiscriminate trivia that falls into WP:NOTSTATS. Let'srun (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTSTATS, and there's pretty resounding consensus by this point that nothing in Category:Career achievements of basketball players is notable. Would support a group nom to round these out and reduce editor effort. BrigadierG (talk) 21:56, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_May_6&oldid=1223792517"