Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 29	July 31 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was 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.

Just a note that this article was declined 7 times while in Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Porto

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

This was a draft that had been stuck in AfC purgatory for about a year, both because almost all the sources are in Italian, and because it has been heavily REFBOMBED (40 sources is a lot for the article's size, none of them are used more than once, and several of them don't directly verify claims in the article). An article with this title has been speedily deleted four times under the Italian Wikipedia's equivalent of WP:G11, including two times for which the creator was the same one here on enwiki. When I brought this matter to the WikiProject Article for Creation talk page, it was suggested I move the article to mainspace and nominate it for deletion.

I will note that there are a few reviews in seemingly reliable sources about this person's work (see [1] [2]), but there do not appear to be any signigicant biographical coverage of him in secondary sources, only interviews. Mach61 23:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. Mach61 23:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is difficult in part because the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO look to be most relevant to US and UK musicians. I see reviews of his musical works but I do not know if those sources are reliable. Most seem to be indie fan pages, which don't usually carry much weight here. I also do not find sources that are significantly about him. I checked some of the listed Italian WP articles and for those that exist he is name-checked and does not appear to be important in those. Lamona (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editors should feel free to add a link to Wiktionary from this page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. No, seriously: notability in the English Wikipedia is notable, for sure, but notability as a general concept? There is nothing encyclopaedic to write about here beyond the dictionary definition. The article claims that it is a concept in philosophy, but it only cites one source from 1975 and I can't find anything else. The rest is just a disconnected collection of references to sources that use the word 'notability' in one of its everyday meanings; they don't outline a coherent topic.

Searches for more sources overwhelmingly turn up material about Wikipedia. And indeed this title was originally used to disambiguate notability in the English Wikipedia, to which we can now add Notability (application), which I think was better. – Joe (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a paper about notability, which may or may not be useful. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also a paper on geographic distribution and other factors affecting notability. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete current Wikipedia article is just a coatrack for a few blurbs about different facets of the definition; doesn't merit an entry here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If notability (haha) is not find by other editors, I propose Soft redirecting to Wiktionary as an Alternative to Deletion. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Joe Roe said, we'll still need to disambiguate Notability in the English Wikipedia and Notability (application). How about transcluding {{Wiktionary}} on the disambiguation page? jlwoodwa (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and disambiguate with a Wiktionary template per nom. C F A 💬 23:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as it's just a dictionary definition which is kinda ironic (haha). Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a contrived topic made for novelty purposes relating to notability as an inner-workings concept in Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. There could be a better article here, but there should at least be a disambiguation page. BD2412 T 17:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, and add a Wiktionary template to a disambiguation page. ADifferentMan (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barauni–Lucknow Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all listed today Bolierplate statement on each nom that comes down to 'my PROD was rejected, so this is the next step'. Please explain on each of these noms a broader statement as to why you're seeking deletion than the same rationale across all of them. They're also too numerous to ever come to a consensus on all of them, and at worst they will all be redirected to an omnibus article, not deleted. Nate • (chatter) 18:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because these are basically the same article, just about different non-notable subjects. There are hundreds of such articles created by a small bunch of users that all follow a similar pattern and that is why the same rationale works for each of them. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The articles about the trains from this list that I have checked appear to be mechanically generated from entries in some database. Their content is mostly identical and each article does not appear to warrant its own discussion. Essentially, we have here a timetable of Indian railroads in a representation that is very inconvenient to use. Indeed these articles can be combined into one table that pretty much will be a copy of the original database. Since a timetable for the Indian railroads must already exist somewhere, a better solution might be to redirect them to a single article about the timetable itself with no details about particular trains, for the latter the article in turn will contain a link to the original, always up-to-date, searchable database. The schedule of regular trains updates many times a year, so we really should not get ourselves sucked into maintenance of these articles. Викидим (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The timetable: [3]. This website is used in the references of nearly all Indian Railway service-related articles, whether notable or non-notable. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would have been more productive if @Arnav Bhate had bundled these nominations as I don't expect editors to be able to reply responsibly to every single one. That said, I do think the nomination statement is appropriate; it makes an assertion about lack of notability and offers a rationale. If the rationales are identical, that's an issue for discussion but not a reason to issue a blanket "keep." Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I do think the nominator should re-do these nominations as a bundle to facilitate participation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously done a bundle of nominations, where users commented that they didn't like large bundles for article evaluation purposes. When there are such a large number of articles, one way or the other, there will be a problem. Arnav Bhate (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article does not meet WP:GNG. It may fall under WP:ROTM. We can instead redirect to a broader article that covers train services in India. Such an article will arrange the details in a more helpful and easy to maintain format. It will also retain the essential info in these many entries.--AstridMitch (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link to ANI above is broken (missing a trailing full stop) - see Special:Permalink/1237570534#AtridMitch. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That link is also broken: it's spelled Special:Permalink/1237570534#AstridMitch. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all articles about trains that are not special in any way. Per my comment above, Wikipedia is not a place to keep a non-searchable, non-official, never-up-to-date, and bloated with repeated text copy of a railway schedule database that already exists elsewhere and does not have these drawbacks (cf. WP:NOTDATABASE). --Викидим (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is a train-line. Coverage such as [4] proves it exists, but doesn't demonstrate notability. Is East Central Railway zone a reasonable merge target? Walsh90210 (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These articles are about individual trains running the line, AFAIK. They can be merged together (or to some other article), creating a timetable. We do not create articles for each star in the sky, although very detailed databases exist that, just like timetables, can be used to mechanically generate some text for each line in the database. Unlike the sky, the railway timetable keeps constantly changing, creating a maintenance nightmare on top of these WP:ROTM concerns. Викидим (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a train line, but a train service. The zone article could have a section about operated services, which could contain a list, so in that way it seems reasonable, though I am not in favour of it. Arnav Bhate (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I can't let this pass without making a comment. This article is only one of so many articles that a fellow editor has listed en-mass that will likely be deleted. So little effort required to have so much effort deleted and then it's gone from wikipedia. As a wikipedia reader I've looked up trains in India when I've "armchair travelled" after seeing the movie Lion_(2016_film) and this kind of information in wikipedia makes my wikipedia experience better. Finally, I'd like to say thank you to the page creators and contributors. Speaking for myself, your efforts are appreciated.Rockycape (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Astaire (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Indian train articles. WP:GNG, WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTTIMETABLE all apply here. Zero evidence that these services are independently notable. Astaire (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that "delete every single article on an Indian train" is not appropriate. Vande Bharat Express, for instance, is clearly notable. What needs to be done is the consolidation/redirection of many of the bare-bones service articles, such as Barauni–Lucknow Express. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a service type, like Vande Bharat Express, "named" trains that have a long history and are reflected in sources, and WP:ROTM point-to-point scheduled trains. The articles targeted for deletion are of the latter type, where the only information about them can be obtained from a train schedule (or sources that copy from such schedule). Consolidation of such information will simply create an Indian train timetable here in Wikipedia, which makes absolutely no sense to me. Викидим (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By "all Indian train articles" I mean all the articles that the nominator has listed. I am obviously not arguing to delete articles not listed for deletion. Astaire (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and all the others nominated at the same time per my rationale for deprodding. If these are not individually notable then they should be merged and redirect to a list or similar articles rather than deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, merging/redirecting these articles would violate WP:NOTDATABASE, because India runs mainly point to point services without any sort of large sense of cohesion or shared corridor/frequency/stopping pattern. That makes attempting to make any sort of article detailing the services basically a timetable which is against policy. Even redirecting to a general article about express trains in India is not a good idea because of the fact the names were made up by the author and are unlikely to be a useful search term. Jumpytoo Talk 05:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Well, there are 45 of these AFD pages on trains and this is the only one that has any substantial participation and I still don't see a consensus. If you are proposing a Merge, you need to also propose an existing target article or your suggestion can not be considered. And because this is not a bundled nomination, "Delete all" can also not be carried out across separate, unconnected AFD discussion pages. So far, the vast majority of these 45 AFDs have no participation at all and since they were all De-PROD'd, they can not be closed as Soft Deletions and are likely to be Kept if there is no further participation on them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 05:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barauni–Gondia Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article does not meet WP:GNG and may fall under WP:ROTM. We can redirect it to a broader article that covers train services in India. This action could greatly improve the quality of the information and make it easier to maintain, while keeping the basic info in these many entries.--AstridMitch (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for a run-of-the-mill lines in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 05:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bapudham Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is just a WP:ROTM service. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for a run-of-the-mill lines in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any sourcing that makes this article meet GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 05:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banka–Rajendra Nagar Terminal Intercity Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for a run-of-the-mill lines in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Intercity Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 05:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangriposi–Bhubaneswar Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" does not even make sense, since the train does not terminate at Bhubaneswar, but instead in Puri. Jumpytoo Talk 05:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangarapet–Bangalore City Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 04:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore City–Nagercoil Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable (the COVID section essentially chronicles the temporary revisions of the timetable). As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 04:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KSR Bengaluru–Kannur Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Karnataka and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 04:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Veraval Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Superfast Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 04:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Udaipur Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Superfast Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 04:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Ramnagar Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 04:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Palitana Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 04:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Muzaffarpur Avadh Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is actually a named train called the "Avadh Express" but I could not find any sourcing that helps this train meet WP:GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 04:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Mahuva Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Superfast Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 04:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Mahuva Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 04:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Veraval Saurashtra Janta Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is just a WP:ROTM service. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is actually a named train called the "Saurashtra Janta Express" but I could not find any sourcing to help this article meet GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 04:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Jaisalmer Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Superfast Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 04:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Hisar Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Haryana, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Superfast Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 04:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Haridwar Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 04:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Barauni Avadh Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is just a WP:ROTM service. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is actually a named train called the "Avadh Express" but I could not find any sourcing that helps this train meet WP:GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 04:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Gandhidham Weekly Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [FREQUENCY] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Superfast Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 04:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Delhi Sarai Rohilla Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 04:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Bikaner Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Superfast Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 04:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Bhuj AC Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [AC (because the train has AC)] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Superfast Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 04:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Patna Weekly Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [FREQUENCY] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 04:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Jaipur Weekly Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [FREQUENCY] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Superfast Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 04:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Bhavnagar Terminus Weekly Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [FREQUENCY] [TYPE OF TRAIN (Superfast Express)]". Jumpytoo Talk 04:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asansol–Gorakhpur Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Jharkhand, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asansol–Gonda Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arakkonam–Jolarpettai Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amritsar–Nangal Dam Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambala–Amb Andaura DEMU

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] DEMU". Jumpytoo Talk 04:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subedarganj–Dehradun Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alappuzha–Kannur Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajmer–Hyderabad Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad–Varanasi Weekly Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article fails WP:GNG. The train service does not have historical significance and may not be notable since it lacks coverage in independent sources, raising concerns about being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We should keep the articles only if they are helpful and have several reliable sources, which is not the case here. The article might fit better in a rail or transport database.--AstridMitch (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [FREQUENCY] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad–Sultanpur Weekly Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [FREQUENCY] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad–Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Katra Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad–Patna Weekly Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [FREQUENCY] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad–Lucknow Weekly Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [FREQUENCY] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad–Gorakhpur Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agra Fort–Ramnagar Tri-Weekly Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Existence at the date of the timetable has been proven. Notability is not proven. WP:BEFORE suggests this is a WP:ROTM service. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and all the other articles prodded and deprodded at the same time to an article or list, per the deprodding summary. There is no reason not to WP:PRESERVE the encyclopaedic content just because the article is not independently notable. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [FREQUENCY] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jumpytoo and fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agra Fort–Ramnagar Weekly Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] [FREQUENCY] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agartala–Garjee Passenger

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] Passenger". Jumpytoo Talk 04:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agartala–Silchar Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Assam and Tripura. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. --Викидим (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, this is a unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] Express". Jumpytoo Talk 04:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Lord Howe Island

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

Unreliably sourced and non-notable, some guy made an unofficial flag, the majority of mentions online appear to be citogenesis. Alexphangia Talk 17:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Alexphangia Talk 17:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's arguably a hoax, and it's non-notable either way. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find a single reliable source for this. fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to be just a flag someone made up one day. Any mentions I found just drew from the Wikipedia page. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, an unofficial and fictitious object. Prof.PMarini (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not totally sure about this. At first I also thought this might be a hoax, and any the sources I am finding were maybe based on the wikipedia article, but the page history[5] shows that the article is based on an earlier article by the "Flag Society of Australia." And here are some photos of the flag flying in Australia[6], though maybe that's just flown by somebody who fell for a hoax? Elspea756 (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge with Lord Howe Island, unless we can establish that it truly is a hoax. Can anyone who has been to Lord Howe Island tell whether people there use this flag? I wouldn't use Flag Color Codes or the fact that there are such flags for sale on Amazon as RS in the article, but they do suggest that the flag is in use somewhere. My second choice after merge would be to delete. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This subject is important enough based on the efforts and events that led to the flag creation. It's use wasn't born out of war but was born out of a friendly sporting competition between two neighbouring islands. What an interesting and notable story in the overall history of this region. I imagine that similar histories of flags creation have been lost for much larger places than this pacific island. I don't think an unofficial flag can be considered a hoax without evidence.

Flag history order of events:-

-someone has created a new flag design

-the design was made into a flag

-someone has travelled with the flag to a neighbouring island for a sports competition

-flag was raised up the flagpole for the duration of the sports competition Rockycape (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this doesn't appear to be a hoax, the coverage is so scarce that it fails WP:GNG. The article is sourced to a single website and a quick search did not find any other usable sources. Astaire (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article should not be deleted but rather merged into the article about the Island itself. 1.127.111.182 (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources do not support this as a standalone encyclopedic topic. Whether it should be mentioned in Lord Howe Island is an editorial decision for those with knowledge about that area; the Lord Howe Island article is pretty well-developed and the editors has not yet found the flag worthy of mention. Geschichte (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article's only source (what appears to be an Australian vexillology fansite) describes it as an unofficial flag. There is no other evidence this is actually in use in on the island or authorized by any governing entity. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Amato

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

Non-notable person, not exactly a musician but involved in the music industry. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unless this is the same person [7], which I doubt, there is no coverage of this tour manager to be found. The links used in the article appear to be either primary or for companies, so not RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. My search turned up no significant results. Journalists should write about tour managers (IMO) but they don't. JSFarman (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and Management. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above comments. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shimul Javeri Kadri

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

Notability issues and significance issues.

Other than the subject being an owner of some architecture firm. Appears non-notable. Thewikizoomer (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Women, Architecture, Maharashtra, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find coverage of her in two books covering architects in India, and I have added these sources to the article. The sources already present in the article indicate broad coverage of her work. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first source is significant coverage (about 15 sentences) in an independent, reliable source (India Today). Nothing so far in this AFD discussion suggests that the other 16 sources will not meet WP:GNG. Elspea756 (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrations (company)

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

Non-notable company per WP:CORP, variously called "Celebrations", Celebrations4U and Celebrations 4U, by its website and the sources cited. No significant coverage of the company itself in WP:RS, just WP:NEWSORGINDIA quotes from its company head in articles about wedding planning. Nothing online about the awards supposedly won, or the awards' significance, or about the company having offices abroad. Borderline speedy deletion candidate, if it weren't for the rent-a-quotes in national press. Strong aroma of undisclosed paid editing in this and other articles by the article creator. Wikishovel (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, Maharashtra, and West Bengal. Wikishovel (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, the included sources rely entirely on information provided by the company and/or execs. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Calvert (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use. (Cannot be PRODed because a previous incarnation of the page was PRODed). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nomination. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Again, please move new sources from this discussion into the article. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Deceivers (Aiello novel)

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

Besides the review pre-existing review from the Pittsburgh post gazette in the article, I failed to find a second review that would satisfy WP:NBOOK. While this might look like an independent review at a first glance, it fails to be independent with this disclaimer here: "You have an indie book. We have several dozen talented reviewers. Let's just make it happen. Foreword offers honest, credible reviews of indie books, and we've been doing it for over 20 years." -1ctinus📝🗨 15:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a second review: Klett, Rex E. "The Deceivers." Library Journal, vol. 124, no. 13, Aug. 1999, p. 145. However, it is barely 100 words long, so YMMV whether this is "non-trivial" coverage. Astaire (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First of all, there is no redirect target since the author does not have an article. Then, it comes down to whether there is enough source material to build an encyclopedic article about the book, and there is not. Geschichte (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Shadow in the Mirror and The Desperate Hours (Aiello novel). The author Robert Aiello has been redlinked since the 2000s, barely notable, high risk of eternal stubbiness and walled WP:ORPHAN. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Concerns no longer valid. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Heitman, Nelly (September–October 1999). "The Deceivers". Foreword Reviews. Archived from the original on 2024-07-25. Retrieved 2024-07-25.
  The page notes: "Disclosure: This article is not an endorsement, but a review. The publisher of this book provided free copies of the book to have their book reviewed by a professional reviewer. No fee was paid by the publisher for this review. Foreword Reviews only recommends books that we love. Foreword Magazine, Inc. is disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255." My assessment is that the review is sufficiently independent of the publisher and the book since no fee was paid for the review. The providing of free copies of the books is common practice; for example, see this page from The New York Times Book Review which notes, "During the Covid-19 pandemic, The New York Times Book Review is operating remotely and will accept physical submissions by request only. If you wish to submit a book for review consideration, please email a PDF of the galley at least three months prior to scheduled publication to [email protected]."
  The review notes: "As the final scenes unfold, readers will find themselves thrilled with who gets their just deserts—even though much has already been revealed—for author Aiello has done justice to developing Montgomery and the rest of the cast of players in this first, and most interesting, tale of suspense."
2. Klett, Rex E. (August 1999). "The Deceivers". Library Journal. Vol. 124, no. 13. p. 145. Archived from the original on 2024-07-25. Retrieved 2024-07-25 – via Gale.
  The review notes: "The basic premise of this first novel works fine, but Aiello wields a heavy hand, throws in unnecessary filler, and waffles with unwarranted explanation. An unnecessary purchase."
3. Gannon, Joyce (1999-09-14). "Dial M for Money< Former Ketchum Exec Hopes to Cash in With Mystery Book". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-07-25. Retrieved 2024-07-25.
  The article notes: "His book, "The Deceivers," is the story of a retired mentalist - a person who performs a form of magic based on mental tricks - who tries to help the Pittsburgh police solve a murder that takes place near the fountain at Point State Park. ... Aiello received about 60 rejection letters from East Coast book agents before he decided to pitch "The Deceivers" directly to small publishers. One of them, Creative Arts Book Co. of Berkeley, Calif., liked his 246-page manuscript and gave Aiello a one-book contract."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Deceivers to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the second more reliable source from Cunard. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources identified above seem more than enough to prove notability here. Great job, as always, digging them up. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jon Radoff. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beamable

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

Most if not all articles about Disruptor Beam and Beamable are simple announcements that fail WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. The article itself appears to fail WP:NCORP without significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jon Radoff per WP:ATD. IgelRM (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jon Radoff per WP:ATD - none of the sourcing meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jon Radoff as a viable ATD per HighKing. Sal2100 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 St. Bonaventure Bonnies men's basketball. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roc City Hoops Classic

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Most of the sources here originate from the participating schools and are primary, and a check didn't find much more than some routine game recaps with the event being only mentioned in passing, such as [[8]]. Appears to be just a routine regular season game. Let'srun (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Basketball, and New York. Let'srun (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to St. Bonaventure Bonnies men's basketball. A Rochester sports blog says There’s something notable about the game officially known as the Roc City Hoops Classic [9], but there needs to be more than their say-so to keep the article. There is enough local coverage to mention this on St. Bonaventure Bonnies men's basketball, but I don't see enough to keep a stand-alone article. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 18:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madlen Namro

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

None of the sources on this page are helpful for notability. There is an extremely brief mention in a British newspaper article on a book she co-wrote and that's all I found while searching. Her one bluelinked work is non-notable and I have nominated it for deletion as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and Poland. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looking through the very odd history of this page I think this might have been a COI creation, but I can't be sure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. No pl wiki interwiki. The publisher has a (not impressive) pl wiki article: pl:Wydawnictwo Anagram. I've never heard of her, and I am interested in Polish sf. I could not find reviews of her books, etc. - they seem to be rather unpopular. All I have for her is a single interview in reliable but regional Polish newspaper: Dziennik Łódzki. [10]. No awards, no critical coverage... I am afraid she fails WP:NBIO/WP:NWRITER/etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piotrus' analysis. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the above, her website is a 404 and I can't find any evidence of her publisher either. -- asilvering (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 18:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Pearl (Madlen Namro)

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

I can find nothing about this book. I'd say redirect to the author Madlen Namro, but from my searches I don't think she's notable either. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I am quite interested in Polish sf; I've never heard of this author (her article, to be deleted, claims that she is a Polish sf writer). Anyway, this article here: E-book only, no reception or awards, looks promotional and cataloguish, fails WP:NBOOK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not even sure this is... a book? It's under 12k words - there are wikipedia articles longer than that. Appears self-published? I don't find any hint of notability here. -- asilvering (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Forces of Nature (TV series). A reminder, please sign all of your comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forces of Nature (book)

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

I was unable to find any sources that are about the book itself. AtD is merge to Forces of Nature (TV series) - which is what made it hard to find sources, since the TV series has the same title and is very notable. There might be sources about the book, but I could find none. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the series. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to series and delete: There's little information about the book on the page, so what exists can be merged into the TV series. I then recommend deleting instead of redirecting as Forces of Nature (book) could also apply to books of the same name with reviews, including Forces of Nature by Cheris Hodges,[11][12] Forces of Nature: The Women Who Changed Science by Anna Reser and Leila McNeill, [13][14] Forces of Nature by Chana Stiefel,[15] Forces of Nature by Catherine O'Neill Grace.[16]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - merge. (Merger isn't specifically mentioned at Wikipedia:Speedy keep, but I believe this is fine since the page is now just a lowly redirect.) (non-admin closure)‎ — W.andrea (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sche

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

A word no one uses today that has no notability; the article isn't saying anything other than an example of the statement that Middle English doesn't have the same word as Modern English. Georgia guy (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started a merge proposal into She (pronoun) § History while this AfD was being created. However, the fact that it's uncited is a problem. — W.andrea (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I found a citation, but it's a dictionary, which isn't sufficient to establish notability. — W.andrea (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't have enough reliable sources to show it's important or notable. Yakov-kobi (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge done. I would have done it sooner but I didn't understand the target page (She (pronoun) § History). I just figured it out and moved the important content from Sche and converted it to a redirect. — W.andrea (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 17:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science

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

I haven't been able to find any sources sufficient to show notability for this university department, either under its current name or as "Institute of Social Psychology". Mgp28 (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Behavioural science, Psychology, Social science, and United Kingdom. Mgp28 (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to indicate notability independent of its parent institution. Astaire (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 17:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zobe Records

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

Long list of sources consists of press releases, "articles" which upon closer inspection are paid for / press releases as well, awards of dubious notability, databases, ... Their Allmusic listings[17] have no reviews, there's even only one record with one user rating. Absolutely no sign of any notability (no better sources found online either), and likely a WP:COI creation (the only other article by same editor is Alonzo Black, presumably the father or grandfather of the founder of this record label). Fram (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, Companies, and Maryland. Fram (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are record labels listed here: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_record_labels that have a lot less notability. The press releases can be removed and that is fine and understandable. Mixedmdman (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing research on the initial article led to finding another topic to add. That is why there is a relation to the two articles. If you literally go to Google and type in the name of the first article you will find information about the second. I went through the guidelines and it appeared to be a topic worth an article when I compared it to other articles that are similar. Mixedmdman (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia so I'd appreciate any help on my articles instead of deleting them so that I can continue to learn and become a helpful and productive editor on the website. I welcome people to help me with the article and edit as necessary so I can see what was done wrong and I can become better. Mixedmdman (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell, this doesn't meet WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important labels; does it have even a single notable artist signed to it? I don't know why we'd cover it if it weren't releasing any significant music. Chubbles (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added notability citations and information. Has been the subject of multiple published works appearing in sources that not self-published and independent of the subject. Has been on a country's national music chart. Has released albums with major record label distribution as an independent label with a history of more than a few years with a roster of multiple performers. Has won or been nominated for music awards. Has won in a music competition. Has been placed in rotation by a music network. It meets numerous criteria. Mixedmdman (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional and possible hoax. The "Cashbox" reference is fake. So is the vsquared rocks. The Global Music Awards are not notable, and dozens of artists "win" these. Articles like the musictimes and NotjustOk references are blatant press/PR pieces. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually think there is a better case for an article for Alonzo Black as there are at least two sources specifically about him. I don't think we can support an article for a record label based solely on a few items that charted at a fairly low level. Note also that all of the digital radio tracker links get no response, although again I don't think that airtime itself could support notability for the label. Lamona (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references appear to meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas L. Fagerstrom

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

Non-notable author and executive. Very few citations in other literature, even more obscure in news/media. PierceG (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Businesspeople. PierceG (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding anything that could source his biographical info. He has written books in a certain religious niche but they are popular rather than academic, so he doesn't meet that criterion. This is not my topic area so I will cycle back in case someone can give us leads on sourcing. Lamona (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Right now, there’s a single source, which is tantamount to WP:OR, and nobody has come forth with []WP:RS|any better sources]]. He hasn’t even done anything notable. Bearian (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transaction Advisors

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

If you check the article history, all content is pretty obviously written by employees of the organization that published this journal. It does not seem notable, it was self-published and every source listed is also self-published (their own website or press releases), except for Worldcat which just confirms the journal existed for one year and is archived in one library in the whole world. If you Google it's just unrelated things and self-promotion. Not seeing any legitimate third-party sources to meet Wikipedia inclusion standards. Here2rewrite (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Finance, Law, Business, Management, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the article nor web searching provides any evidence of passing WP:GNG (the controlling guideline) nor WP:NJOURNALS. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched Google for sources with "transaction advisors" and "journal" and excluding material on their own website and anything with the PR phrases "prestigious technical journal" and "prestigious new technical journal". It did yield three publications[18][19][20] that cite it as a reference (one, from the snippet displayed, might not have been, but the other two did include its ISSN and did clearly appear to be citing it). That's it. That doesn't seem sufficient to cross the notability threshold. Largoplazo (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It has some financial importance but needs more reliable sources. Without any Improvement with better references will be better to delete it, so my opinion is to Keep it under terms for improvements. Yakov-kobi (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a journal it's indexed nowhere, thus fails WP:NJOURNALS. The rest are primary sources/industry puff pieces. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Willis (soccer)

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

Article about former soccer player which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. There is a batch of match reports, press releases from his employers/university, an interview with the subject on a blogpost (none of which are significant coverage in reliable sources). The very best coverage I could find consisted of a single sentence in The News & Observer [21] which is well below any concept of significant coverage. A PROD was removed without making any effort to find SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and North Carolina. C F A 💬 15:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turks and Caicos Islands at the 2010 Commonwealth Games

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

Re-creation of previously deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominica at the 2010 Commonwealth Games where a clear consensus to delete existed). Still lacking sources. An unnecessary fork from existing articles. AusLondonder (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Caribbean. AusLondonder (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Comment does this page qualify under G4 for speedy deletion? -1ctinus📝🗨 14:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the rationale is going to point towards a past AfD discussion, it makes sense to try a G4 tag first. In this case, it was different enough that I chose to decline the G4 tag that @CFA: had added. The version that was deleted was, essentially, just "Turks and Caicos Islands competed in the 2010 Commonwealth Games held in Delhi, India, from 3 to 14 October 2010.[1]", with a see also link to the 2010 Commonwealth Games and a flag for the country instead of a proper infobox. There were no tables or relevant infobox information included at that time.

Lastly, I'd just like to note that, in addition to the nominated article, which was re-created in 2018, the Turks and Caicos Islands at the Commonwealth Games articles exist for 2002, 2014, 2018, and 2022. This one resembles several of those and a number of other countries at the Commonwealth Games articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. since I'm reading the solitary participant's comments as an unbolded Keep. It's too bad this discussion didn't elicit more participation but things quiet down over the northern summer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Douglas Berardo

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

None of the sources here are ones I know to be reliable, and most appear to be small/local coverage. Nothing else here suggests an NBAND pass. One of his albums is already up for a separate AfD as well. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, New York, and Rhode Island. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Depression is reliable source. It is a highly respected music magazine. MarySue Twohy is program director at Sirius XM. Folk Dj is a international organization with a radio station It's part of Folk Alliance International. I believe he meets the criteria for having a single on national music chart if you consider Folk Alliance International https://www.folkradio.org/ Currently his new record is currently #24 on this chart. Two of his vidoes for singles were reviewed by Americana Highways, another respectable music publication although they are not listed in this article. The festivals that he won or was finalist are national competitions Lyle Lovett and Nanci Griffith were finalists at Kerrville. Most of the other references such as who he performed with were added to support a statement as being true. I agree it needs to be updated, but I not deleted. Performer Research (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Folk Alliance International would be considered a valid chart as I would assume it falls under SINGLEVENDOR. No Depression should be reliable and Americana Highways is as far as I know (bit surprised to see neither listed at RSMUSIC), but it's still a bit limited. This could be turned around though. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would also help if you could link to the Americana Highways articles and any others you bring up that aren't already present. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am not sure if FAI would be a single vendor. I am not quite understanding the definition. I am looking further into it. I am in the process of updating this page. It will take me a few days since it has not been updated in quite awhile. If there are other suggestions on making this page more compliant, I welcome them. Thank you. Performer Research (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Bryce

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion in March-April 2021 where no consensus was reached. I think it's time to delete or at least leave a redirect as the subject isn't notable and has not been since his defeat in 2018. Seems much of the coverage on his page is about and during elections he's ran in. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. --Talthiel (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Wisconsin. C F A 💬 15:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed some malformed syntax in this nomination by reapplying {{subst:afd2}}. No opinion or comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He's never held office, despite running is several elections. A three-time political candidate isn't notable. Sourcing is simply confirmation of information needed to inform voters, almost routine coverage. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are at least 3 very significant sources: The Washington Post, The New Yorker, and Mother Jones. Each article is substantially about him. He may not meet NPOL but I think that GNG is met. Lamona (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NPOL. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:NPOL. The thing is that every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so the existence of some campaign coverage does not in and of itself hand a candidate a WP:GNG-based exemption from NPOL — if that were how it worked, then every candidate would always get that exemption, and NPOL itself would be rendered completely meaningless and unenforceable. So a candidate only gets to claim that GNG has exempted them from NPOL if (a) they have coverage in some other context (e.g. as a writer or a sportsperson or a musician or an actor or whatever else) for the work that they did before running as a candidate, which would get them over our inclusion standard for that other occupation independently of an election campaign, or (b) their campaign coverage evinces a credible reason why their candidacy would be a special case of significantly greater notability than everybody else's candidacies. But neither of those things are in evidence here, and the mere fact of having some campaign coverage, which every candidate in every election always has, isn't enough by itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bryce does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG, as he has never held public office. There are political activists who are notable despite never being elected to public office (i.e. Charlie Kirk and Mini Timmaraju), but Bryce doesn't come close to meeting notability. He has not led any major political organizations or run in statewide races that garner significant media attention. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nobody supports retention. Sandstein 17:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carefree, Indiana

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

There is a "Carefree Dr" in the vicinity, but other than that there is no record of the spot on maps until it got back-added from a FIPS listing, which should almost count as a self-citation. Anyway, there's nothing there until 1998, when the main distribution warehouse of Jasper Engines was erected spang on the location. I'm guessing "Carefree" was actually someone's farm but at any rate there's no town and never was. Mangoe (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. C F A 💬 15:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found some sources that mention Carefree. November 25, 1984, Indy Star mentions Carefree in Crawford County as "the last to incorporate before the [1980] census" [22]. However, it appears there was a legal dispute of some sort about whether it was properly incorporated. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you can find something that defines the boundaries of this supposed town? Looking at aerials from the period, I'm not seeing anything, certainly not at the GNIS spot, until the Jasper warehouse is erected; there's some commercial stuff on the south side of the interchange, but hardly a town. At this point the thing looks like some sort of fraud, but we're stuck with nothing but very primary sources. Mangoe (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two more recent sources mention the town, WTHR reporting [23], and the Indy Star [24]. A veterans center nearby described it as their "Carefree location" [25]. The nearby Madison Courier also consistently describes events taking place in Carefree [26], and a magazine from the neighboring county includes references to Carefree [27]. A few obits people having been born in or lived in Carefree [28][29]. It seems like locals consider this place to exist. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also some remnant signs of a town. An old smoke shop, a car salvage, a Carefree Truck Stop. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the truck stop is mentioned in the case and appears to be the whole reason behind the incorporation attempt. I would not be surprised to learn that the other businesses in the area were also owned by incorporation petitioners. My guess is that they saw some political advantage for their businesses but screwed it up. What is quite clear is that (a) the location in GNIS is just wrong, and (b) there's no Carefree residential area: the closest thing appears to be the mobile homes that now occupy what apparently was originally supposed to be a KOA (and may have been). Before the interchange was built and the businesses appeared, there was nothing.

This is actually an interesting story for a local reporter to write up, but there's obviously more research needed, including looking at the court documents and interviewing locals. If I lived where I could get at the appropriate libraries I might consider doing it, but I'm several states away. As it is, this isn't in our purview. And I don't know how we write an article that says "not actually a town, maybe some sort of business maneuver, at any rate just a locale". Mangoe (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I searched the full archives of the Courier-Journal (the nearest major newspaper). Gotta love a town first mentioned in classified ads "Builder Inquiries welcome! Carefree, Indiana! A New Town with a future!" (10/28/1977) Then the same ad ran 83 more times. Then the place was mentioned five more times in classified ads in the 80s and 90s selling or renting land. This, combined with the court case mentioned above, would seem to suggest this was more of an attempted real estate development than an actual incorporated town. But people called the area Carefree for a while, perhaps because of the 1970s advertisements. Weak delete because I only looked in the one newspaper database, although that paper did write a lot about the towns in that area. --Here2rewrite (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, checkuser confirmed LTA. . -- ferret (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toucan Sam

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

Although toucan sam is one of the most popular cereal mascots, i did a BEFORE search to make sure that many reliable sources exist and all i could find were just scraps that barely talk about him. Babybunny2007 (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Animal. Babybunny2007 (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Buffyverse novels. If no effort to merge takes place within a month, any editor is welcome to blank and redirect to the target. Owen× ☎ 20:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Buffyverse guidebooks

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

The guidebooks themselves are not notable by any GNG measure. Buffyverse and buffy itself, yes, but not these guidebooks. Iljhgtn (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Television, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The guidebooks can be used as sources, but aren't noteworthy to be written about themselves. They are like the pre-internet version of a TV show's official web presence. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do these books constitute a series, or are they just a collection of unrelated books? If not, there's surely somewhere this content can be merged, even if a BEFORE (was one done?) didn't find anything. Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy. Daranios (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I wonder if there are reviews for the individual books. We know that there is at least one for the Watcher's Guide Vol. 2 because it is linked in the article. I am not sure if the other links are reliable sources. If there were, then this list might just be the place to collect them under WP:CSC, where the individual entries of a list themselves fail the notability criterea, but secondary sources exist to cover them. It is also the case that The Buffyverse Catalog (and to a lesser degree The Whedonverse Catalog) as a serious independent source dedicates chapters to the guidebooks, so it's not like there was no coverage. Another secondary source is Undead TV : Essays on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which analyzes "texts such as The Sunnydale High Yearbook and The Watcher's Guide", and thus pretty much Buffyverse guidebooks as a group, as well as guidebooks together with novels, opening up the opportunity to merge this with List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer novels (and possibly renaming it to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer books) in case keeping this separate is not wanted. Daranios (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Buffyverse novels and rename it List of Buffyverse books. More appropriate merge target since both lists cover Buffy and Angel books. --Mika1h (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the list could be rather be renamed to List of Buffyverse literature if the AFD about the magazine closes as merge. --Mika1h (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are other articles that could be merged in, too. Sunnydale High Yearbook survived an AfD earlier this year, but might well be better presented in such a combined article. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fitting for Fandom at best. A list of this type is something an encyclopaedic site like an already bloated Wikipedia do not need. Lists like this needs to be purged to keep it from becoming the poor Fandom imitation it already is. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you oppose a merger, please specify why.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge should be merged into the main Buffyverse page. It’s too narrow and lacks enough detail on its own. Yakov-kobi (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Buffyverse novels, as suggested by Mika1h above. That is where Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffy the Vampire Slayer Magazine incorporating Angel Magazine landed already. A move discussion can determine what the name of that page should be with the added content. --RL0919 (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristal Kola

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of citation RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Turkish article only has primary sources. Since I said in 2022 that it was not notable neither @Jfire: nor @HelpingWorld: have added any cites to the article to show otherwise. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Yinglan

AfDs for this article:

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

I know this is a shorter than normal re-nom window, but the most recent creator has been blocked and locked for UPE. None of the factors have changed and I'm hoping for more input and therefore resolution after the May no consensus. Star Mississippi 12:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Singapore. Star Mississippi 12:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources appear to be passing mentions or non-independent/promotional coverage. Not seeing enough to meet WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Recommending salting based on the SOCKing and UPE. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The analysis presented last of of the sources from the IP editor clearly show this is not notable. Routine coverage or name drops don't help prove notability. I don't find anything we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent sources and fails WP:GNG. Fjnat (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kroksbäcksparken

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

A park. Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. While it is a park, it is also a neighborhood of Hyllie in the borough Väster of Malmö, but that doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND. Geschichte (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. The Swedish article is only minimally longer and doesn't appear to have any explicit claim of notability. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sweden. C F A 💬 15:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded the article with the help of three newspaper articles, and I'd argue it's a completely different article now than when it was taken to AfD. /Julle (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) convinced we can get this one over the line. I did a source search in Swedish and there are over 100 hits in the local paper and 66 mentions in scholarly articles, including at least two articles directly on the park. This is a blog but there's information if you search just in Swedish. I'm just not sure how to get this one over the line on my own. SportingFlyer T·C 16:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New alternative: Merge to Kroksbäck Geschichte (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with Julles additions I think this is notable. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and there's plenty of additional sources. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willem Ebbinge

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

Lack of significant coverage, which is not surprising: the footballer has only played for a reserve team and a college team, failing WP:TOOSOON. As to why the sources do not contribute to WP:GNG; NZ Herald is a listicle, and Otago Daily Times is a completely insignificant/trivial piece about a local child (at the time). Geschichte (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and New Zealand. C F A 💬 15:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xtabentum: A Novel of Yucatan

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

A WP:BEFORE scan shows only one review that could count here (this looks like a blog and doesn't read like a review), and no awards were found on Google or ProQuest to satisfy WP:NBOOK. The page links a self-published Patch.com article and a blog, which does not count. Page is an orphan with no place to redirect to. Ineligable for proposed deletion after somebody deleted a prod for a speedy deletion in 2013. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Mexico, and Illinois. C F A 💬 15:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. C F A 💬 15:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing else usable I found. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping User:Cunard? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I also found an article in a Daily Herald; it's behind a paywall and is basically just an announcement for a book reading. Otherwise, there are no reviews on common sites, including Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, Booklist, and Library Journal. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
The book's website, https://www.xtabentum.com/reviews.html^{Internet Archive}, does not list any reliable reviews. This indicates the book is not notable since my searches for sources also did not find any reviews or coverage beyond what the nominator and Significa liberdade listed. Cunard (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Diana Chapel

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

I don't see any sort of notability. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Religion, and Philippines. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and~~ redirect to Gandara, Samar#Tourism where it's already mentioned with nearly as much information as is in this article. The name of the cemetery is ~~missing, but that's an easy merger~~. LadyofShalott 12:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: name of the cemetery is there in a caption. This can just be a redirect as a reasonable search term. LadyofShalott 12:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosphorus Airways

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

Looked through Turkish media and not publicly available archives but I didn’t find any sufficient sources for indicating the airways’ notability. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting thing that is missing from the article and something that I did not expect to see at all today is that this tiny airline apparently went to the European Court of Human Rights with the state of Ireland? It has its own article on here, and on a quick glance seems to satisfy notability. Should this AfD result in delete, some content can be merged into that article for some background information. Styyx (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment provides important information about a now-defunct airline that played a role in Turkey's aviation. --Loewstisch (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please don't just make commcnts but offer your opinion on what should happen with this article. If you want a Merge, what target article? Or should this article be Kept or Deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NCORP - no WP:SIGCOV of the airline in independent reliable third-party sources that I could see from a look through the first ten pages of Google results. The airline cannot WP:INHERIT the notability of the ECHR case which anyway had its own article. Parties to ECHR cases - who can be private citizens - are not automatically notable. Feel free to ping me if more sources are found.

Regarding the assertion that articles about old airlines have "historical" interest, that is not for us to decide with no reference to anything off-Wiki. Instead the interest of historians has to be evidenced by references to articles and texts showing that the subject-matter is of "historical" importance. FOARP (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manorathangal

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

References are brief mentions, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable. Draftified previously but disputed as well as notability tag disputed. Would suggest a redirect to ZEE5. CNMall41 (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a landmark project in Indian cinema. It's bizarre that someone finds it irrelevant. Would you suggest that The Irishman produced by Netflix should simply redirect to Netflix? Filmy World (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many reliable citations are added there is no need of deletion of merging Zyzwvw (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: bylined articles in Variety, The Hindu and Onmanorama, for example, seem to show this is notable. A redirect is indeed warranted anyway, so very opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Put it back to draft and saltify the title, no more moving to-and-forth. Let an administrator review it next time. Gan Favourite (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? If this is notable, why draftify and block creation, on top of that, if we can agree it's notable here? no more moving to-and-forth? I agree: leave it in the Main. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because nobody has referenced specific notability-establishing sources in this AfD. Sandstein 17:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank above cited three bylined articles that are linked in the article. I link to them in my !vote below. This is not a valid "delete" rationale. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Creator is now blocked at SPI--CNMall41 (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of the creator's block status, the production of this film anthology passes WP:GNG and thus WP:NFILM's criteria for upcoming films. There is reliable-source WP:SIGCOV in Variety and The Hindu, both of which are listed as reliable at WP:RSP. I can't evaluate all the non-English sources but Variety and The Hindu provide a baseline pass of WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindu piece is a mention. Nothing about the film other than it exists. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be misreading the article. The entire article is about the origins and production of the nine-film anthology that is the subject of this AfD. It's extensive enough that if I were to quote every passage about the anthology it constitute a copyvio. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus that this doesn't currently meet our notability guidelines but multiple editors have requested draftification and no one has argued that doing so would be inappropriate. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F*** Marry Kill

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

Lacking significant coverage per WP:NFP BOVINEBOY2008 08:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, found no reviews or coverage except for press releases akin to the one already found in the article. Possible redirect to Fuck, marry, kill. Geschichte (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fuck, marry, kill, creating an "In Popular Culture" section. Vorann Gencov (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. It has not yet been released, and does not appear notable enough to have an article before release. Jerdle (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NFP. The page could be recreated when the movie's release date draws near, however. TH1980 (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – <ranton> 95% of films on wiki do not meet WP:NFP</rantoff> Since principle photography has commenced with notable stars, with a high likelihood of this being an article "closer to release", send to Draft to wait out time and incubate there.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I agree with Loriebdrew, we should move this page to draft as it is currently not notable enough for mainspace Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. Spideog (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adeka

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

not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written very specifically, so much so that I suspect a COI. I’m not voting one way or the other. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, sourcing in the article all relies on announcement and none contain in-depth "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 11:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and radio stations in Metro Cebu. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYDW

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

Fails WP:GNG, requires significant coverage (not mentions in passing or inclusion in lists/directories) in multiple independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Philippines. Dan arndt (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of television and radio stations in Metro Cebu This is the only reasonable outcome right now. There are a lot of obvious correlates that to me suggest the sourcing to make this a reasonable article should exist somewhere—the station is more than 35 years old in one of the country's ten largest cities. This is not either a new station or a small-market station, both of which will struggle to generate sufficient coverage. But I do not know if the sourcing to improve this page exists online.
I am going to use this opportunity to speak directly to the editors who mainly work on Philippine TV and radio pages.
Read the room and start shoring up the articles that need substantial, independent references to demonstrate passing the GNG, not creating new ones.
The creation of new pages and drafts in Philippine radio has continued apace. Pages like DYWC-AM are not acceptable as new pages in 2024. The references need to be more than passing mentions, able to sustain significant material for the article.
Years ago, our practice was that most standalone stations merited articles. That has changed with the 2021 RfC that ratified the GNG as the standard in this field. I am slowly working on creating the conditions (namely list coverage and quality) to cull hundreds of Mexican station pages I created last decade for the same reason; many stations are old enough to have coverage, but newspaper availability is poor, and the pages are stubby. This may be the correct approach in the Philippines. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television and radio stations in Metro Cebu following Sammi Brie's rationale - can you point me to the RfC you mention, I would have thought that WP:NCORP applies. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alameda Council

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

WP:NORG and WP:ORGIND fail. If a suitable target can be found, it could be re-directed as suggested for WP:BRANCH, although this article certainly does not merit standalone Graywalls (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, and California. Graywalls (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with OP.

Axad12 (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Men's Folio

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

May not meet WP:NMAGAZINE and WP:GNG. Unable to find significant coverage of the publication. Article is supported by sole subject's About us page at the time of nomination. Article was dratified and then subsequently moved back to mainspace by the article creator. – robertsky (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Singapore. – robertsky (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 10:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Bible

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

I could not find hardly anything on this book other than that it is for sale in some corners of the internet. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the info in ro:Biblia_pierdută. Seems quite notable in Romania (I've add some bits), so it should be fine on en-wiki as well. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Sguerka. Can be expanded from corresponding RomWiki. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. WP:SNOW keep, character is extremely well-known, and the nomination appears to be either bad faith or having no idea about notability criteria. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi

AfDs for this article:

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

Luigi is A Really well known character in the mario franchise, But luigi has very little actual discussion about him. I have also seen many unsourced information on this article, which is true since it only contains 30 sources. These are just not enough to hold up luigi as an article sadly. Babybunny2007 (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Babybunny2007 (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your point. Having 30 sources isn't a reason to delete an article, especially when a quick glance suggests the majority of them are both reliable and independent. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep no evidence of a BEFORE done by nominator. While I'm not one to keep solely on the grounds of iconicity, Luigi is a character that's one of the most iconic characters in the several decades of video gaming's existence. There are also several topics solely focused on him, such as Year of Luigi and Ennuigi, which are notable subjects that are focused entirely on the character. Doing a BEFORE is difficult given the breadth of coverage that exists on the character, but even a brief search yields some results. It'll take a lot of research to make this article of a high standard, but the character is without a doubt notable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I understand what you're getting at, but you need a real in-depth analysis of the sources to make a decent case for why this article doesn't work. It's true that most of these sources aren't about Luigi specifically, but he's a major subject of many sources and has a major role in so many games that we should easily be able to write a sufficient article on him even if we had zero dedicated coverage. I would suggest setting your eyes on lesser characters first, and to create a proper argument based on which sources are and aren't available. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I'm not trying to sound rude or BITE-y here, but this nomination is laughable. Yes, the article is in rough shape, but deletion is not cleanup and that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable. No evidence of a BEFORE search is present, and this rationale as a whole is critically flawed. There are countless reliable sources discussing this character, including the media he is in and promotional Year of Luigi. And that's not even getting into the academic sources and books (which are the highest quality sources you can get), where most coverage discussing Mario (who is a cultural icon) discusses Luigi to some extent as well. It's actually baffling I'm even having to defend this article. While I don't want to sound rude here, I simply can't see this nomination as having been done in good faith. λ NegativeMP1 07:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. My instinct as a regular closer is to Draftify this article as suggested. But, reading over the comments of those editors arguing for Deletion, they are really stating that this article is irredeemable and should be started over from scratch. The consensus is to Delete and while a closer has some discretion, I feel like I have to honor this consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of animal superheroes

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

While this subject probably passes WP:LISTN, this page is in such a poor state that it probably can't be salvaged without nuking it and starting over. It only cites one source (which is an unreliable WP:VALNET source) and it seems to indiscriminately list characters with no semblance of objective inclusion criteria (by what criteria can Aslan and Diddy Kong be considered "superheroes"??). If this subject is to have an article, it really should be written from scratch later down the line because this page is currently entirely original research. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and Lists. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as WP:IINFO. A lot of these are just animal characters, with no rhyme or reason. If I had to guess, some people are treating talking animals in fiction as a type of superpower? Most of these entries are unverified and there is nothing to WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I actually attempted cleaning this up some after the previous no-consensus AFD back in 2019 by removing a lot of the ones that were either completely non-notable examples (i.e., one shot characters that appeared in a single episode of a series or examples from completely non-notable franchises) or were not in any conceivable way a "Super Hero". I even tried to start a conversation on the Talk page to get further feedback and help in cleaning up, which no one ever replied to. And looking at it now, its in even worse shape and more of a complete WP:INDISCRIMINATE mess than it was then, and can't even stick to even a remotely coherent inclusion criteria. Rorshacma (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft and establish some real parameters for inclusion that require the animal in question to be properly identified in sources as an animal superhero. BD2412 T 21:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one footnote, fails WP:V and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. WP:FANCRUFTY trivia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy keep, opened by an LTA vandal. -- ferret (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Count von Count

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

I'm open for any criticism, But I think there are only a few reliable sources talking about this character. One of the sources from this article is from IMDb, A primary source site, and I believe there are also a few other primary sources in this article. Babybunny2007 (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Babybunny2007 (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A quick WP:BEFORE would've revealed various sources not yet incorporated in the article. Detailed, impactful, and diverse. Do try to do a basic source search if you can. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seriously? This is a 50+ year old character in a seminal children's show. Who would legitimately believe that no sources exist, even if they're not currently in the article? Jclemens (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination seem to deal only with the current state of the article, which is not decisive for deletion. There are easily enough secondary source like those already listed above to establish notability, so that any issues can be solved through normal editing. @Babybunny2007: If you want to nominate articles for deletion on Wikipedia, please do follow the WP:Guide to deletion, which does include: "You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth. See WP:Before." Daranios (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - nominating this for AFD was the user's 16th edit. We do not need to entertain a discussion on those premises. Geschichte (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Yeah uhh very flawed reasoning. Procyon117 (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I might be sound like I'm biting you but please stop nominating random articles. See WP:ARTN for more info Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 02:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deuchars, Indiana

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

This is also called "Deuchers" on some maps, not to mention on the road that passes through the spot, but there is just nothing there, and I cannot find anything except for a passing reference from the Lomaxes that they recorded some song there. Mangoe (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a real place as evidenced by this mention here: https://cfmb.icaap.org/content/35.3-4/BV35.3-4art2.pdf but there is nothing to write about it for an encyclopaedic article. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Collett

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

Fails WP:GNG. Mostly self-authored by the subject (User:Ideation269), who acknowledges himself on the talk page that most of this information is unverifiable. Whatever sources are provided are routine, and not independent sigcov. Jdcooper (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Television, Comics and animation, England, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. See source assessment table. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.glenbow.org/collections/search/findingAids/archhtm/riveredge.cfm#series5	?	?	dead link	✘ No
https://archives.banffcentre.ca/list?q=%7B!mlt+qf=title,topic+mintf=1+mindf=1%7Ddescriptions30462&p=1&mlt=Film+maker+Milton+Fruchtman+pioneers+new+directions+at+Banff+Centre+%5BPhoto:+Milton+Fruchtman+and+George+Moore%5D&ps=20			Search results page for Paul D. Fleck Library and Archives and fails verification	✘ No
https://www.surrey.ca/arts-culture/surrey-art-gallery/exhibitions/animatoon-history-of-animated-film-malcolm-collett			Collett listed a s curator of free City of Surrey ehibition from 1980	✘ No
https://www.nfb.ca/film/the-snow-war/			listing of film The Snow War . Dont see any mationo of Collett	✘ No
https://www.estellesalata.ca/?page_id=267	?	?	dead link	✘ No
https://www.elliotlake.ca/en/recreation-and-culture/our-town-banner-project.aspx?_mid_=79260#Malcolm-Collett-Sherriff-Creek			mention of banner project entry at The City of Elliot Lake	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20230701192620/https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b799ab762	?	?	? Page won't load.	? Unknown
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}}.

Weak Delete. Source assessment by WomenArtistUpdates is totally correct. The glenbow.org dead link source is archived at [30] and I don't find the name "Collett" in it. The estellesalata.ca dead link source is archived at [31] and is not independent (Estelle Selata is listed as a co-writer of the film) and not significant (only five short sentences). The bfi.org link did load for me, and it is just a directory listing that does not provide significant coverage. I have not been able to find any additional sources. I am saying "weak delete" as finding WP:SIGCOV sources on an artist working in the 1970s and 1980s is always more of a challenge than something more WP:RECENT. Elspea756 (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) Bsoyka (t • c • g) 03:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Witt (disambiguation)

AfDs for this article:

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

Better handled by hatnotes. The last nomination only had two participants so this is worth discussing again. Bremps... 02:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also see this deletion review of the first AfD closure. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 03:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I moved ahead with redirection anyway, so this discussion is now moot. Bremps... 03:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Paradox Interactive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Waldetoft

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

I did not find any secondary, significant coverage in a search for sources that would meet our notability guidelines. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Video games. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Paradox Interactive. Plausible search term, very active in his respective company, but as the nom suggests, I'm not seeing proof of independent notability. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above: The German article mentions working with Brandenburgisches Staatsorchester Frankfurt (Oder), but that doesn't appear to be significant coverage. IgelRM (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't see the previous draft that was deleted after 3 AfC rejections in 2022, but it may have been the same as the present article, as the text is outdated: the subject's own site says he left his job at Paradox in 2023. AllyD (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Clifford the Big Red Dog. I'm reluctant to enact this closure as the nominator is an LTA sockpuppet and this should have been closed as a Speedy Keep but the clear consensus here is to Merge so that's what I'm going to do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford (character)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article relies on references to unreliable sources, Plus it is written in a fan's point of view. Babybunny2007 (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Animal. Babybunny2007 (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Clifford the Big Red Dog Reywas92^Talk 03:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – This character is synonymous with its franchise, in the same way that Sherlock Holmes is with its franchise. It's one big red subject. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have speedy kept this but with two Merge !votes, I"m leaving it open. The nominator is a checkuser confirmed LTA vandal who repeatedly sends well known and established characters to AFD. -- ferret (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 01:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Evan Anthem

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

Does not pass Notability standards for people or artist/musicians. They additionally haven't been active in years so I don't foresee this changing. Moritoriko (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania. Moritoriko (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Social media and streaming sites are all there is, I don't find any media coverage of the band. What's now used for sourcing in the article is unhelpful. Oaktree b (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no WP:SIGCOV for it Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 01:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richardt Strydom

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

Fails WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. Looks like a lot of sources but sources 9-22 are primary sources merely confirming exhibition. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and South Africa. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Artists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but for people with academic positions in the practice of art rather than its scholarship, WP:NARTIST is far more likely than WP:PROF as a notability criterion. He had a solo show at the Johannesburg Art Gallery, which does count for a lot for me (as the only thing in the article that stands out) but I think is not enough by itself. I'd like to see the same, or preferably inclusion in the permanent collection, at more than one major museum. Reliably published reviews of (multiple) shows would also contribute, if they can be turned up. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My search didn't find anything that would contribute toward GNG notability, and the Johannesburg Art Gallery show doesn't seem to be the sort of "significant exhibition" that would trigger WP:NARTIST. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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