Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 03	July 05 >

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplay Token

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

Not a notable cryptocurrency. Sources are in Japanese and mostly broken; the ones that work seem to be PR pieces or listings on trading platforms. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about all I find [1]. Cite Highlighter doesn't index most of the ones used in the article other than #2 - orange- so mixed-reliability. I don't find anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 5 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 Skins characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of recurring Skins characters

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

A non-notable fork of List of Skins characters. We don't need more than one character list for this television show, and there isn't WP:SIGCOV for these unremarkable characters. Jontesta (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Skins characters. There is no need for two separate articles for main and recurring characters of a television show, when a combined article should suffice.⁂CountHacker (talk) 02:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Skins characters - Many of the reoccurring characters listed here that actually had any importance are actually already also covered at the main character article, making this a rather redundant spinout article. Rorshacma (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per CountHacker. We don't need two non-notable lists, and the first list can always be expanded if WP:RS are found. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:20, 11 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!} 23:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Locations in Jericho (TV series)

AfDs for this article:

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

This page is almost completely uncited and appears to copy aspects from a fan wiki. Without significant real world reception in reliable sources, this fails WP:PLOT and WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overly detailed plot minutia that runs afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are no viable sources being used, and despite the "Keep" arguments in the previous AFD in 2009, this is not, and never was, a proper topic for a spinout article. Rorshacma (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the top map to Jericho (2006 TV series)#First season for illustrative purposes, the rest is (I agree) excessive in-universe minutiae without relevance for the real-world. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article isn't important enough for an encyclopedia because it looks like fan trivia and doesn't have independent sources to back it up. It doesn’t bring notability and verifiability. So I think deleting will be a good way. Yakov-kobi (talk) 18:10, 05 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page's material is far better suited for a Jericho Wiki than Wikipedia itself. TH1980 (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. The image can be preserved, per Sgeureka, and included at a related article. What to do with the file is a separate discussion. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:50, 9 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Down to a Sunless Sea (Graham novel)

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

Non-notable novel by minor writer, no meaningful sourcing Orange Mike | Talk 22:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Ny Times reivew here [2] and a Kirkus Reviews item [3]. Probably just enough, two critical reviews. Oaktree b (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know that some interpret WP:BOOKCRIT as meaning that any book that gets a couple of reviews is notable. First, whether or not a book gets reviewed often is a function of the degree to which the publisher does its promotion - publishers *push*, reviewers do not *pull*. Second, there shouldn't be much weight given to Kirkus reviews because Kirkus reviews everything they receive, and their reviews are intended to indicate whether libraries should add the book to their collections. Third, I know that the policy does not state that the reviews have to be positive, but there is some common sense that says that it makes a difference. Negative reviews of factual works may be useful but fiction is art, not science, so there really isn't the kind of back and forth of facts or conclusions that you have in the non-fiction world. In this case, the reviews clearly state that this is a mediocre novel, with cliche'd writing. To further deny notability, this was presumably being made into a movie but almost ten years have passed and it has not happened. I don't know how to find out if the movie concept is totally abandoned, but this is another strike against this book. (Note that movie studios snap up lots of books, mainly to keep anyone else from using them. It's actually making them into movies that should be noted.) Lamona (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree with Lamona's arguments. Wikipedia does not only contain articles on books with good reviews and a movie. I can see why Lamona wouldn't want to add this book to their bookshelf, but critical reviews are the definition of notability for a book, and anything else is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Toughpigs (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will need at least one more "non-trivial work", IMO, because the existence of a Kirkus review is pretty much the definition of trivial. Kirkus reviews every book coming out of a standard publisher, and the reviews are brief. They also are aimed at predicting popularity rather than cultural import. I ran through the EBSCO database and didn't find any. It's made more difficult because the title "Down to a sunless sea" has been used many times by different authors, including Neil Gaiman. I was able to learn that David Graham is a pseudonym of Evan Wright, an RAF pilot who claimed to have had psychic experiences. (Charman, R. (2017) ‘Research Note: The Gloveless Ghost of Air Gunner Stoker and Pilot Officer Douglas Worley’s Apparent Premonition of Death: Two Very Baffling and Disturbing Cases’, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 81(3), pp. 194–204.) He wrote under other names as well. I'll add this to the talk page. Lamona (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also found reviews of the book in the Buffalo News and the South Bend Tribune. This should be plenty to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I had originally created this article, and had to look up when. It was probably one of my first creations here, since I created it in January, 2004, or more than twenty years ago. Since then, dozens of other editors have contributed hundreds of additions and corrections to the article. If the book wasn't interesting to others I doubt it would have been regularly updated and revised. I concur with ToughPigs, I think Lamona's desire to "cancel" this article is more of a case that he does not like it than that it is not notworthy or qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia. As to the allegation that some critics consider it a "mediocre novel with cliche'd writing," first, that's their opinion and they're entitled to it, but it could be they do not like the subject matter: the story begins with the first-person narrative of a British airline pilot on a lay over in a bankrupt, third world country that is so impoverished that its neighbor country to the north imposed the death penalty for smuggling gasoline to it, and starving mobs try to rush airplanes leaving the country to someplace better, with military troops having to shoot them. The "third world country" in question? The United States after it exhausted its oil reserves. As the book progresses, things go from bad to worse. While later real-world events proved the scenario unlikely, I believe the book is a reasonable look into a dystopian New York City and how if the world is balanced on a knife's edge of sanity, any event can trigger a catastrophe. Not every book of this sort of dystopian future is necessarily going to get positive reviews, I think it is a relevant example of the zeitgeist of the period and how some people thought the 1970s oil crises might end. For these reasons, I urge retention of the review.

"Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."

Thank you.
Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least four reliable sources review the book. That's above NBOOK and GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:56, 7 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 Anandha Ragam (TV series)#Adaptations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anandharagam

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

Another WALLEDGARDEN of an original television program and all its adaptions. References do not show notability and most of the references are about the other adaptions. Would recommend a redirect to Anandha Ragam (TV series) (the original) as an ATD. Would redirect myself but know based on history we would be back here anyway once it is removed. CNMall41 (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anandha_Ragam_(TV_series)#Adaptations -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anandha_Ragam_(TV_series)#Adaptations. RangersRus (talk) 13:42, 5 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of European Mineral Programs

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Engineering, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Move to European Mining Course Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 4 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. As an aside, it's unusual for an account with 4 edits to start an AFD discussion on an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italian invasion of Kosovo

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

Recent POV content fork from Invasion of Yugoslavia. Olimiko (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Italy, and Kosovo. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Considering the article creator doesn't appear to respond to any message and continuously creating pages on a contentious topic, this might be better discussed at WP:AN. IgelRM (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not sure what the issue with the article is. Perfectly notable and has an impressive amount of sources and references. Brat Forelli🦊 22:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can't find significant overlap between the two articles' content. RyanAl6 (talk) 10:37, 11 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 Hasbro. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backflip Studios

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD brought up several interviews, but those are primary sources, and arguments used there do not rise to our current standards. Besides the one SIGCOV Dean Takahashi piece brought up in the previous AfD, it appears to fail WP:NCORP with just trivial mentions and announcements of their closure. Merge to Hasbro perhaps? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Colorado. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hasbro , since the firm was acquired by Hasbro and the purchase and its subsequent closing were mentioned on that page. Prof.PMarini (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "Hasbro" as suggested seems fine. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 5 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. There is definitely no consensus to delete. There are indications there might be consensus to merge it but since that consensus could be found (if it exists) outside of AfD, I'm closing this as keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evil-Lyn

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

No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 14:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 14:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be enough sourcing, and the nomination statement doesn't engage with what there is. There are multiple CBR references, but there appear to be enough RS to meet GNG, and the burden of BEFORE is on the nominator to show how what's already in the article does not. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this just me; but its only a 2 low quality situational Valnet sources [4] [5] in the article + this source from before and for me it isn't enough yet for GNG, due to the source quality. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 20:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:VALNET, which is also cited at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Valnet sources do not contribute to notability in discussions such as these. As all of these are VALNET, there is no notability displayed right now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no less than five non-Valnet online sources and one magazine source listed. The above does not constitute a source analysis. Jclemens (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-The Los Angeles Times source is merely a one sentence mention of Linda Gary voicing her. Same deal for the Polygon source, except with a different VA.

-The San Francisco Chronicle source is a plot summary overview of her character

-The MTV Link is broken, so I cannot view it. I cannot view the SFX sources either.

-The HashtagTV source doesn't seem to even mention her? The source also doesn't seem reliable, and even then is only verifying that she'll appear in an upcoming production.

There's not even commentary or dev info here- at best there's two sources verifying VAs, which is not enough to pass the GNG bar. Nom seems to have done a BEFORE, and a brief BEFORE didn't yield much for me, either. Do note if I've missed anything, but this seems to be a rather minor character with very little additional sourcing to back up any substance. Ref count is not equal to notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the MTV link so it works. https://www.mtv.com/news/jat6pt/masters-of-the-universe-classics-faceless-one-review Each to search for the title of something and the name of the source to find it. Dream Focus 09:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but MTV link is broken again; all links to mtv.com archives seem intentionally broken, but wayback may have a copy of it. Regardless, the SFX source has still not been dealt with. Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. I don't have the time to go through and search for sources myself to form an opinion on notability, but this is the obvious WP:Alternative to deletion which preserves the article in the history for possible future use and I am pretty sure something from here can improve the corresponding section at the target. Daranios (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is definitely in a pretty bad state, but Evil-Lyn is one of the most significant characters in the franchise. Given the presence of MOTU: Revelation, a couple of sources do exist pertaining to Lena Headey's portrayal of the character; interviews and reviews. From some research I've done, although critics from the 1980s don't seem to bring up Meg Foster often when discussing the live-action film, retrospective reviews do somewhat often single her out for praise. The article itself may not show it, but sources and coverage of Evil-Lyn do exist.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I don't know what I should respond to this. This looks like WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument somehow. Interview sources are primary and does not help GNG; same with Valnet sources. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 00:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, interviews count as primary. Additionally, could you please cite some of these sources you're referring to? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews may count as primary, but depending on the other/surrounding writeup may well count as independent RSes contributing to notability. Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can an interview be primary for a fictional character? Were they interviewing Evil-Lyn in character on some in-universe interview show? I would think that only the show itself is a primary source for the show. BD2412 T 00:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the claims of @Jclemens: and @PanagiotisZois:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters as stated by user:Daranios. Significant coverage only comes from CBR, a questionable source according to WP:VALNET, and the wikis for He-Man MOTU, but these are tertiary sources that either do not cite references or just makes circular references to articles within that wiki. Not notable for a separate article at this time.Prof.PMarini (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Merge and Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the few sourced sentences to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Evil-Lyn, which already seems pretty balanced. Real-world info on animated characters will be quite hard to come by, so better develop this in the character list until it potentially hits WP:SPINOUT quality. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing is just about sufficient. Cortador (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the character list for now due to lack of sourcing and a clear WP:ATD. No objection to a spin-out later if enough sources are found to rewrite the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as WP:ATD. I am (in good faith) baffled by the claims there are sufficient sources. An interview quote from an actress, or a listicle about multiple He-Man characters are examples of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. Plus, there is a consensus CBR and other valnet sources are questionable, and only usable in narrow situations. There is very little to WP:PRESERVE but a merge will create compromise and WP:CONSENSUS, instead of a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:17, 11 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. BusterD (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uplift Heights Preparatory

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

I found nothing that shows the notability of this school. SL93 (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Texas. SL93 (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSCHOOL, nothing better to be found on web search than the non - RS source on the article. No good redirect target. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This school does actually have WP:SIGCOV in Dallas Morning News, other local news, but it's a WP:BRANCH of a larger organization, requiring sources beyond the local DFW area, and that larger organization doesn't have its own page so it's not a valid redirect or merger target. Dclemens1971 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Patrick Carney. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Eagle Records

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. It's mentioned in a few interviews with Carney, and there's this very short article on Cleveland Scene about it. A possible alternative to deletion is a merge/redirect to Patrick Carney or The Black Keys. toweli (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, United States of America, Ohio, and Tennessee. toweli (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Patrick Carney. Option to keep if more sources are found. Why is this at AfD at all? Chubbles (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Patrick Carney, then delete to prevent restoration. Absolutely fails WP:NCORP. The suggested target is also tarnished by public relations editing activity, so that page needs to be carefully scrutinized for potential GNG fail. Graywalls (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Patrick Carney: Merge? I don't see merging coming when the article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Since it reads, "The recording studio is used solely for Carney's productions.", redirect to the founder's article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:49, 4 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Doyle (American football)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5. I have searched but did not find WP:SIGCOV about him. The search is complicated as the name is common. For example, this is another (slightly older) Edward J. Doyle, who also coincidentally attended Canisius. Cbl62 (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

note - There is some confusion here. There is yet another Edward J. Doyle (Eddie Doyle (American football)) who has the same date and place of death but a different birth date. Cbl62 (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~(edit conflict) Died in Morocco aged 37? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Guessing it was confusing with the other Doyle per above comment. PFR says he died in Canada in 1997, aged 91. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the answer. Cbl62 (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having figured out the Doyle who died in 1997 is the one we're discussing, he turns out to have been a prominent sailor (aka Bud Doyle) and received significant coverage, including an in-depth staff-written obit at The Buffalo News. See e.g. [6] and [7]. Also, FWIW, the obit does discuss his NFL career. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. I can't read it without subscription but I trust you that it's SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cbl62: You should be able to read it here: [8]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt about it. That's SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 18:26, 4 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. BusterD (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katlego Malebane

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

No notability for this child sportsperson, lack of sources that are significant and secondary. Geschichte (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject seems like a young athlete, and there just isn't enough independent information about them yet. Waqar💬 18:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This subject does not have the significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG or WP:YOUNGATH. Quite possibly WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 19:44, 7 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. BusterD (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Road Safety World Series

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

No evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage to pass WP:GNG. This event and all of its (so far 2) seasons falls foul of WP:NOTINHERITED- just because some notable people played in the event, this doesn't make the event itself notable, as it's a clear GNG failure. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and India. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. AA (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and this league has not sustained and has not attracted noteworthy significant attention for notability. Two seasons were played with the last in 2022. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any evidence that it's been covered by reliable sources for a long time. Perhaps if the event gains more traction and consistent coverage in the future, it could be recreated then. Waqar💬 18:20, 6 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legends League Cricket

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

No evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage to pass WP:GNG. This event and all of it's (so far 2) seasons falls foul of WP:NOTINHERITED- just because some notable people played in the event, this doesn't make the event itself notable, as it's a clear GNG failure. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Oman. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:GNG, WP:OFFCRIC, and WP:EVENT. Its whole existence is based around WP:INHERITED and has no WP:LASTING. AA (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
matches of this league are covered by sources like ESPNcricinfo, etc. Vikas265 (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Cricinfo has scorecard coverage of lots of matches, that doesn't make them notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vikas265:. Cricinfo has scorecards of early 2000s club matches, doesn't make the leagues notable. Most of what you introduce just isn't notable. AA (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nom, this league does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Routine match reports, statistics and coverage of individual players don't cut it for notability, and that is pretty much all I'm seeing here. Let'srun (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main article and redirect the seasons such as 2022 Legends League Cricket Masters to Legends League Cricket. Legends League Cricket as a topic meets WP:SIGCOV - there is direct, in-depth coverage with proper bylines in Al-Jazeera ([9]), Sportstar ([10]), and Arabian Business ([11]). I'm also in favor of redirecting 2022 Legends League Cricket and 2023 Legends League Cricket to the main article (although not yet nominated). 2001:861:3B89:90D0:2DB1:3B21:F04B:1070 (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how a random IP knows about WP:SIGCOV. I already have my suspicions that two socks are involved in these articles... AA (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see the articles 2022 Legends League Cricket and 2023 Legends League Cricket posted these above. It seems too late to add them to this AFD now, but if there is consensus to delete these other articles, I will raise an AFD for those 2 as well afterwards. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:34, 9 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. Unacceptably worded nomination. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wyn Beauty

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

MaximumRespect! MrFixer200 (talk) 15:58, 4 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 no consensus‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terwin (corporation)

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

The Terwin corporation doesn't meet NCROP - no reliable independent of the subject sources; advertisement, Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The corporation is notable, it meets WP:ORGCRIT— it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the corporation. It is one of the biggest corporations in Ukraine with $1,6 billion assets and $1,7 billion revenue (2023). Before the Russian invasion, the revenue exceeded $2 billion. Nowadays, the corporation is building logistics hubs in four regions of Ukraine (Odesa, Lviv, Dnipro, Kyiv) with a total investment of more than $500 million. Of course, this and other activity of the corporation has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. --Perohanych (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so, share please 3 best sources meeting WP:ORGCRIT 167.86.184.60 (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of them can be considered as secondary, independent of the subject, and with quite significant coverage of the corporation.

I am not sure if it is an extra argument, but simple Google Search gives 3800+ results --Perohanych (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: per WP:NCORP. There is enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Most is in Russian or Ukrainian. See Google news. C F A 💬 16:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 12:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources are deep enough or independent enough to establish the company notability per WP:NCORP. The article's author does not understand what reliable sources are. Google News is not a measure of notability. Every source should be analyzed, and I have done this, concluding that all the sources met in the page and here provided by the author, are only superficial mentions or routine announcements with no single source providing in-depth, independent media coverage. --182.53.28.77 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Let's analyse every mentioned source:
1. The text of European Business Association is entirely devoted to Tervin and provides enough about the size of the corporation.
2. This text of Forbes is entirely devoted to Tervin. It contains an in-depth analysis of the corporation's composition, assets and revenue, as well as information about the founders
3. This text of Liga is entirely devoted to Tervin. It contains an in-depth analysis of the corporation's history
4. This text of New Voice is entirely devoted to Tervin. It contains an in-depth analysis of the largest companies that make up the corporation
5. This text of Interfax is entirely devoted to co-operation of Tervin and the state Agency on investments.
All the media are independent. There are much more sources --Perohanych (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the sources, all are paid, or not independent (EBA is a fee-based association which posts anything about their members). Forbes is not deep enough - it's just an announcement based on press-releases of the company. New Voice is an interview - definitely not independent or reliable source, Interfax is a press-release. 2603:9001:1E00:96F3:A459:81A7:7125:1D34 (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 15:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete WP TOOSOON, absence of reliable independent of the subject sources. Maybe it will be easier to redirect the page to its founder. --2601:586:8401:C90:A2D2:B1FF:FE88:EFFC (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources, listed above, is dependent on the subject? This corporation is already very notable. --Perohanych (talk) 15:35, 9 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 14:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Caribbean Queen's Tournament

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

The only sources that cover this friendly football tournament are run-of-the-mill announcements that the tournament will occur and reporting of the results. This tournament meets neither WP:NEVENT nor WP:GNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, Football, Netherlands, Caribbean, and Trinidad and Tobago. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is some coverage that is more than run of the mill. The topic may move in the direction of notability for the tournament series, not for the editions. The proposed is an annual edition, however, and it is early for such historic perspective. So delete. gidonb (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources are just basic announcements, and it's too early to say if the tournament itself will be historically significant. Waqar💬 18:21, 6 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 Manufactured Superstars. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manufactured Music (label)

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

Can be merged to Black Hole Recordings or Manufactured Superstars with little information. The label doesn't show any significant importance for it's own article, neither there are any sources. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 12:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Colorado. Skynxnex (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just put some sources on there earlier. Dogperson160 (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a new article that is still being worked on, but I see no reason why it shouldn't redirect to Manufactured Superstars. I removed the list of 160 songs from the label as clearly excessive. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just put it back. This wasn’t the only article about a music label to have all of the releases on it. Dogperson160 (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I don't believe any record label article on Wikipedia should list all of their releases – that contravenes WP:NOTDATABASE and isn't what Wikipedia is for. The focus should be on a discussion of the label. Richard3120 (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Manufactured Superstars. Nothing wrong with Wikipedia providing discographical information, which is encyclopedic, but the roster of artists for this label is underwhelming and I don't see a strong case that it needs a separate article from its founding members. Chubbles (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and delete history prevent future public relations activity. Target is barely notable. Graywalls (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect after merging whatever is considered appropriate into Manufactured Superstars, this company doesn't meet our notability critieria, insufficient sources for GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I don't really see what should be merged. I don't see the label having any particular cultural or artistic impact, and a discography such as this might be better served at discogs for which we have a linking template. Except for the catalog, (agree in most circumstaces with Richard3120 here), we don't really have anything about the label. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:17, 7 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 14:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Tower

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Stuart Tower (2nd nomination)

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

I do not think that these claims are enough to confer notability. Otherwise, its simply a very unremarkable block of flats, with all that I could find being 'property' listings & the like.TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Crime, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcquidditch:, we were too efficient ;-) Reverted my close of this. Star Mississippi 14:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Tower as a G6 so we stop E/Cing all over the place. @TheLongTone you did nothing wrong. I think Twinkle hiccuped. Star Mississippi 14:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think it was Twinkle, altho I do have fat fingers.TheLongTone (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Heavily WP:COATRACKing a set of murders/suspicious deaths, but I'm pretty sure the building didn't kill them. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this building; the article is a WP:COATRACK for WP:RUMORS about certain of its occupants. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:54, 4 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 Carbon, Indiana. Star Mississippi 17:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pontiac, Indiana

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

So what do you do when the only substantive source basically says that this place never really amounted to anything, i.e., it isn't really notable? That's what the county history says: the place was laid out on speculation, but in the end the railroad either picked the more northerly route it has now, o wasn't built at all (the text doesn't make this clear). What we're left with is a crossroads with some houses and "Carbon Church", which I can't find much about besides a FB page. Also, the location given is just wrong. Older topos put the label in the right place, but round about 2013 both it and Carbon are shown about 1/2 mile west of their actual locations; they fixed Carbon but not Pontiac. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carbon, Indiana. There does seems to have been a small settlement there, but this 1915 map simply identifies the site as "South Carbon" (which makes sense since it's less than half a mile from the town). The few other old maps I found that showed it as a populated site didn't name it at all, and none mentioned Pontiac. Given the site's lack of notability, the presence of "Carbon Church", the fact that it's right on the edge of the larger town, etc., I don't think it merits its own article. I recommend redirecting to Carbon, Indiana. I can also add a brief mention of the site to the Carbon article. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:02, 4 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 David Sullivan (businessman)#Personal life. Star Mississippi 16:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Vorley

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

BLP1E. Football club directors are not inherently notable and by coverage this is a pure BLP1E as the appointment of a porn/glamour performer caused some noise at the time. Beyond that, nothing. Not by her real name or alias Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sexuality and gender. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:ENT, and WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage of her as a former glamour model, pornographic actress, nor film director. She being an English football club director is considered to be WP:ONEEVENT. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David_Sullivan_(businessman)#Personal_life: where she is mentioned; merge what's necessary. Not opposed to keep, given existing coverage -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 15:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David_Sullivan_(businessman)#Personal_life: Subject lacks the needed sustained coverage to meet the WP:GNG and does not meet WP:CREATIVE. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't see a problem with the article, there is enough online although it's heavily WP:TABLOID. Govvy (talk) 10:11, 8 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Flintoff

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

Non-notable cricketer, who hasn't played at first-class/List A/Twenty20 level. Under-19 cricketers are deemed non-notable and most of his coverage seems to come as a result of his famous father, so WP:NOTINHERITED applies. An article can be created once he makes his senior debut. AA (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. AA (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG easily. Do we have an SNG being abused to deny wider community norms here? Where does it say under 19 cricketers are always non notable. This is no ordinary cricketer here but the son of a cricket icon. Easily passes notability standards and his coverage reflects his own efforts and not his Dad’s. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So basically your whole argument is WP:INHERITED. PS: I don't abuse anything on this site. WP:NCRIC says: "...cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level...". AA (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And GNG requires 2 sources and outranks NCRIC Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No response on WP:NOTINHERITED, which this clearly is... AA (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh you twist and twist but the coverage is about him Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unclear that he passes GNG - County 2nd XI would not generally make GNG, no major honours (per WP:SPORTSPERSON). Of citations, overwhelming majority are framed in terms of his father (WP:NOTINHERITED) - e.g. "Inside Freddie Flintoff's life with his adorable family...", Biggest test for Flintoff's talented sons...", "Freddie Flintoff's son, Rocky,...", "Andrew Flintoff's son makes...". He may well progress beyond county cricket into first class & intl - but he hasn't yet WP:LAGGING. Hemmers (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widespread coverage across the world in the BBC, Sky Sports, The Times, Malaysia Sun, Times of India, News18, The Independent, The Telegraph, Wisden, ESPNCricinfo and the list goes on. Yes the articles often mention his father in the headline or the article themselves but that is going to be the case his entire life unless he manages to totally surpass what his father achieved which is a high bar to set. The articles themselves are about him, not his father, and as such he easily passes the coverage test. Shrug02 20:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A lot of convenient ignoring of WP:NOTINHERITED going on here. If his father was Joe Bloggs, a plumber from Cleethorpes, there wouldn't be any coverage. I might start adding club cricketers with loads of coverage in county newspapers. AA (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We shall never know as his father isn't "Joe Bloggs, a plumber from Cleethorpes". But many of the players selected to play for England under 19s get media coverage despite not having famous fathers and also I would think that whoever broke a record set by Andrew Flintoff would at the very least get coverage in and around the Lancashire area and probably further afield too. But again we will never know as that isn't what happened, it was his son who broke the record. Shrug02 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the Second XI Championship has never been a high enough level of cricket to be deemed notable. Its matches hold no status, and as such are and have been considered since I've been here (2010) to be non-notable. Same with Under-19 cricket; there are countless Under-19 cricketers who have been deleted over the years, because that level of cricket also isn't notable and carries no match status. Just like many associate cricketers who have played T20I cricket aren't notable... AA (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are not an indiscriminate collection of any and all cricket trivia: WP:OFFCRIC. AA (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And again you put your sng over the gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OFFCRIC is a depreciated guideline that doesn't overrule WP:GNG. If someone has significant coverage to pass WP:GNG then they are entitled to an article regardless of the level of cricket they have played. Similarly, just because someone has played in a certain high level of cricket, that doesn't man they're automatically notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes he gets more coverage as the son of Andrew Flintoff, but he has exceptional levels of coverage about him/his career compared to most others at his level. And the coverage of him passes WP:GNG. Just because most articles have half an article about him then half an article about his father, that does not invalidate the coverage about him in these articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And as there is coverage about Rocky Flintoff and his cricket career, then WP:NOTINHERITED is not correct assertion in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a blanket ban on non-FC/LA/T20 players... otherwise we'll end up with minor counties cricketers, club cricketers, school cricketers, etc, who just so happen to do something in a form of cricket that doesn't carry status and has no notability here. Matches that carry status should be the gold standard for inclusion, especially after we have spent years defending our strict inclusion criteria from a certain Belgian and his friends who thought we were lax. Especially when articles like this lack quality and are refbombed the hell out of. 34 references for an article this size, seriously? AA (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should 100% not have a blanket ban on anything- if an article meets WP:GNG, it can be included on Wikipedia. People can play a minor match like Flintoff Jr and get more coverage than someone playing 40 first-class matches in a country or historic time period with little coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Spartaz. Easy WP:GNG pass. First-class/List A/Twenty20 standard is irrelevant as both cricket guidelines WP:CRIN and WP:OFFICIALCRICKET have been deprecated. 2001:861:3B89:90D0:2DB1:3B21:F04B:1070 (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An an IP knows this how? Quack. AA (talk) 21:26, 8 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 no consensus‎. No penalty for bringing this article back to AFD once it is not such a fresh topic in the news. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Foolio

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No indication of awards or charted songs. No notable biographical details prior to his death. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Florida. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we don't need every ganga rapper who have been shot dead. Not notable enough — Iadmc ♫^talk 11:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you actually do research you would now he has bean a notable artist in Florida since about 2018 2600:8805:D1B:7500:1322:CAB:414A:D0A0 (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC) - — 2600:8805:D1B:7500:1322:CAB:414A:D0A0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: Doesn't pass musical notability; coverage is only about his death. I gave up after 20 pages in Gnews trying to find mentions of him before his passing. Simply not a notable performer. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rapper is notable. Particularly within Florida. Jattlife121 (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page, definitely. I have known about this rapper for years, and I am not a big rap fan. The fact that he has been known for so long indicates notability. Dag21902190 (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. Another no-name rapper whose death has made more headlines than his (non-notable) music. Dead rappers always make headlines no matter how obscure they are. Changing vote to keep after performing article cleanup. There is considerable coverage about the subject, but it's mainly about his role in the Jville gang wars while his actual music career is virtually irrelevant. Would also like to see primary SoundCloud citations replaced with reliable sources. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 21:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We need to keep this up. STGInfo (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps this article should be about his death? It got major coverage in many major outlets. Thriley (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rapper is notable. Particularly within Florida especially in Jacksonville and through the south. He has many notations in different news articles. Foolio is also is featured on Pimp of the Nation album by Natalac Featuring international recording artist sean paul, grammy award winning Project Pat, Three 6 Mafia Member La Chat, Pastor Troy, Ying Yang Twins, Keak da Sneak to name a few who all are very Notable rappers Yameka (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His death is certainly covered but his music and life? We need sources for these.@Yameka — Iadmc ♫^talk 06:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

https://www.abnewswire.com/pressreleases/pimp-of-the-nation-a-sensational-new-hiphop-album-by-natalac-to-be-released-on-presidents-day-2192018_184054.html Yameka (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yameka (talk • contribs) 23:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.allmusic.com/album/pimp-of-the-nation-mw0003174654

https://www.allmusic.com/album/pimp-of-the-nation-mw0003174654#credits

https://www.makinitmag.com/updates/natalac/2018/03/djs-says-natalac-pimp-nation-lp-classic-material

https://g.co/kgs/m6zgJcJ

Also there are Radio Edit and Explicit versions released Pimp of the Nation & Pimp of the Nation (Radio Edit)

This project was released Presidents Day 2018 aka feb 19th 2018 in hard copies throughout the south and online on all platforms Yameka (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

News Article .. First Coast News contacted Jacksonville Rapper Natalac and got his and the sheriff of Jacksonville input on Julio Foolio outcome. Natalac with his decades of experince with Hip Hop & younger rappers he worked with through messages through music.. he chose Foolio for his 11th Studio Album with grammy award winners etc. with their song Bridge This Gap a song to send a positive message. On natalac Pimp of the Nation. going by this article

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbEiSj5yhHA

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/local/jacksonville-rapper-natalac-experience-with-foolio/77-6c775f01-b3bf-4232-8611-36190b187882 Yameka (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yameka Don't double or triple-vote, please. Bremps... 04:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok i fixed that. Good day Yameka (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Artist is fails notability guidelines. There's barely any coverage I could find apart from his death. ~~I do think we could have an article about his death like @Thriley suggested, though.~~ DaCrashy (T.C.) 16:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ONEEVENT. --Magnolia677 (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting how all the “keep” votes are repeating the “he’s notable because he’s from Florida” mantra, and verbatim to boot (“Rapper is notable. Particularly within Florida”). Florida does not represent the entire country. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 19:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or indeed the world! — Iadmc ♫^talk 04:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Florida is the third most populated state so to be one of the most popular in Florida/Rap music itself is a great accomplishment who most of the world watches/listen if you enjoy rap 2600:1700:6740:D20:51CA:C9A6:A6F6:2F22 (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While BIO1E and 1E are extremely important these don't apply here. Wikipedians apply these too much after violent deaths. In a way this makes sense. It's an unusual feature. Still, we should work by policy and guidelines. The keep is by GNG. gidonb (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Foolio was the subject of multiple independent coverage even before his death. In 2019, Vulture.com, in reviewing Never Wanted Fame, wrote the mixtape "establishes Foolio as one of the most gripping, irresistible rappers working today." In 2021, Vice credited Foolio, along with Yungeen Ace, as playing a leading role in popularizing rap versions of pop songs. His feuds with other rappers have been covered by Atlanta Black Star [12] among others, and he received significant coverage in a 2021 Complex.com article on the Jacksonville rap community. [13]. Police blotter news articles about his shootings and death can fill in the gaps for a concise, neutral, and fair biography that is fully compliant with all WP policies. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no point in creating an article for someone who was irrelevant as a rapper when alive and a gangster 103.75.195.51 (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority does seem to find his article valid in this discussion. Although opinion and guidelines are two different things I understand. 2600:1005:A017:1BB:A844:C313:B47E:CA62 (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been significantly improved since nomination. Passes GNG. Thriley (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent the past hour removing all the original research and unsourced content shovelled in yesterday as part of the "improvement". Magnolia677 (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think he meets GNG based on the material Animalparty collected. Thriley (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rapper is notable and article has been improved a lot. Elektrinhooo (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep worked with famous producer Zaytoven, viral diss tracks, multiple articles and videos covering Foolio and the jacksonville gang war. Tabratic (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable enough and makes the same music as any gangsta rapper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.75.195.51 (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment every gangsta rapper talks about the same stuff in their music. most of what’s popular today is “gangsta rap” Tabratic (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that doesnot mean they should have their own page especially when his songs were not even blowin upp 103.75.195.51 (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tabratic and 103.75.195.51: Please do not double vote. Bremps... 18:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate votes struck or modified as comments. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 22:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough coverage to establish notability. Fair for me to say passes GNG-- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 16:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Received coverage in several sources considered reliable by WP:MUSIC/SOURCE prior to his passing. Here are some examples: AllHipHop, HotNewHipHop, HipHopDx This could further be supported by a WP:GNG table. Célestin Denis (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in accordance with User:Célestin Denis. No major charting or certification does not disqualify coverage. Foolio is notable. Atomicpowur (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Foolio is definitely a noticeable and well-renowned artist. I wouldn't delete this page. He falls under the category of hip-hop artists killed by gun violence. Which has its on list of all notable hip-hop artists that have died. There is more information about him within interviews hosted online. 2600:1005:A017:1BB:A844:C313:B47E:CA62 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Rapper is notable. Keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.173.111.140 (talk) 15:56, 9 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, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paulius Stankevicius

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

No indication of importance. I have a degree, I founded a small consultancy, I wrote some articles, I wrote a book. BrigadierG (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Advertising, Hong Kong, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment: I found several personal interviews from established media outlets like Forbes India[14] and GQ[15]. The subject person's business career has also received a certain level of coverage. (See Fortune[16], Forbes[17], and Yahoo! Finance[18]) —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Q&A type interviews are primary sources, Forbes India and Fortune are sponsored content, Forbes Georgia and Yahoo are press releases so all of those are also primary and not independent. S0091 (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strike my vote first. I do not believe those interviews are primary sources in the first place since it addresses the subject person's company and the trade industry as a whole, so I did not identify them as PS per WP:IV. But I had no idea that the Forbes India interview is sponsored content, and I agree that paid advertorials should be considered non-independent. My rationale was mostly based on the two interviews, but with one deemed non-independent and one with disputed views, I no longer possess a strong rationale to go for keep. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I conducted another round of searching but did not find any other usable sources. Thanks to S0091 for pointing out that the Forbes and Fortune sources are non-independent paid advertorials, which I had overlooked. A single GQ interview is not sufficient for passing GNG. Changing my !vote to Delete. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: none of the sources contribute to WP:GNG as they are either primary such as press releases or interviews, trivial coverage or not reliable such as the Huff Post which was written by a contributor rather than staff. S0091 (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: [[19]], [[20]] and [[21]] are enough to establish notability.

102.91.4.74 (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it pass GNG as Google search shows multiple independent sources with significant coverage.

DXdy FX (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checked the new sources presented by the IP user and added to the article by DXdy FX. Irish Tech News and AI For Developing Countries Forum are not reliable sources. The Business Insider and Yahoo Finance sources are press releases about the subject person's company, not even about the person himself. I can still only see one usable GQ source I have previously founded in this discussion, and do not think it would be sufficient to pass GNG. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:41, 9 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open value network

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced, term doesn't seem widely used. The article is entirely unreferenced and I can't find any indication it's increased in notability since the previous deletion in 2017. The deletion reasons from then still seem to apply. JaggedHamster (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Software. JaggedHamster (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Also a bit promotional in tone but not enough for G11 '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Besides all the above it reads as though it had been created by a buzz phrase generator. Mangoe (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article seems to be in the same boat as the previous deletion attempt in 2017. There are no sources listed, and I can't find any evidence the topic has become more well-known since then. Waqar💬 19:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. Few sources [22], [23] (primary, non-indi), ISO/IEC 15944-15 (primary, per article). Widefox; talk 11:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the comment from the previous AfD that it seems a marketing tagline for Sensorica that didn't really take off. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:39, 8 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. ^Complex/_Rational 11:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjala Ramakrishna Reddy

AfDs for this article:

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

The article doesn't meet WP:NPOL; WP:GNG

Sajjala Ramakrishna Reddy is an advisor to the Government of Andhra Pradesh during 2019 - 2024, along with more than COUNTLESS others.^[1] (Andhra High Court on Role of Advisors; Some of the List of Advisors) Additionally, he is one of the 31 General Secretaries (List of YSRCP secretaries) of the YSR Congress Party. Beyond these roles, there is little of value to add in Wikipedia article, so I propose it for deletion. RWILD ✉ 10:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He's in the media quite often, but not in any articles about him. There's this [24], but not helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as Journalist and politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. There is no in-depth significant achievement notable. RangersRus (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Andhra Pradesh రాష్ట్రంలో ఎందరు సలహాదారులున్నారు.. ఆరా తీస్తున్న ప్రభుత్వం". Samayam Telugu (in Telugu).

Delete: It seems the coverage isn't substantial enough. Perhaps with more time and accomplishments they could qualify in the future. Waqar💬 19:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per RangersRus. No notability present. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:20, 11 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 procedural close‎. The last AfD was closed just a week ago. A merge is still pending and the article is tagged accordingly. Please be patient (or do the merge yourself). – Joe (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of Stonehenge

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated a previous version of this page for deletion. The consensus decision was Merge to Just Stop Oil, which was not what I had originally proposed. The Just Stop Oil page does contain a brief summary of the relevant event, but I don't think a full merge has been carried out. Instead, this page has been expanded to cover other instances of vandalism. However, it's still got the infobox and the undue emphasis on the flash-in-the-pan event that prompted the article's creation. I believe this fails WP:COATRACK, and I still think the article should be deleted, possibly with a merger of the relevant bits into Stonehenge, not Just Stop Oil. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Travel and tourism, Archaeology, and England. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:57, 4 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!} 08:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Women's Premier League (cricket) captains

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK, and violates WP:NOTDATABASE as almost the entire content of the article is just a copy of the ESPNCricinfo source [25]. Just because the men's IPL has this article (which I also don't necessarily agree with), that doesn't mean this article meets WP:NLIST, as I don't see significant coverage about these captains grouped together in news sources (i.e. not just copies of the table). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people, Cricket, Lists, and India. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. The page does not meet notability guidelines WP:FAILN and WP:NLIST. RangersRus (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For full transparency, I'm just noting that I mentioned this list was nominated for deletion at the featured list nomination here. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are other pages for list of captains as well; see Category:Lists of cricket captains. They have the same sort of sources as well; what difference does it make? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are captains of teams, rather than captains at tournaments (apart from BPL and IPL, neither of which seem notable either). Why would we need a list of every captain ever at one competition? Also, WP:OSE applies to this rationale. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does CFORK applies here? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 14:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NLIST. List of Indian Premier League captains should be AfD'd too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant database. Orientls (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. For IPL, there is coverage like this, but I failed to find such coverage for WPL captains (where this topic is discussed as a set). 84.98.25.20 (talk) 20:45, 8 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!} 08:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Mogenet

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

Was likely created by WP:COI subject. Unclear notability from WP:BIO. Brief mention of subject in RS doesn't pass WP:GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, Software, and France. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Source analysis: 1. Bilanz (Handelsblatt) is likely sigcov but, as a trade magazine, may be paid. 2. Telegraph has less than one sentence of coverage about him, not sigcov. 3. Le Monde has only quotes, zero sigcov. 4. Wired Italy mentions his name a whopping 15 times, but has no sigcov of him or his biography, only quotes. 5. Le Temps (link is broken, the article can be found here) also only mentions him, no sigcov.

Since this is a COI creation I will not bother to search for other sources. If another editor with more patience than me finds enough new sources to meet the GNG, ping me and I'll reconsider. Toadspike [Talk] 14:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per what's written above, especially the bit about COI creation MaskedSinger (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This subject fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. In-depth coverage by multiple unrelated sources indicating encyclopedically WP:DUE biographical prose appears absent. WP:COI concerns are well-founded, but merely explain this article's existence. If the subject were notable, the article would merit a rewrite from scratch by someone who is not the subject. JFHJr (㊟) 00:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article seems like it's about someone who isn't quite famous enough yet to justify a whole page. Waqar💬 18:24, 6 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!} 04:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cruisers Rock Combo

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:43, 4 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. ✗plicit 06:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Chenfeld

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

Clearly unnotable. All but one of the sources are about his record company or Kidz Bop. The sole source documenting him is an interview. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, United States of America, and Ohio. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete: Should be notable with articles such as [26], but I don't find enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage now in the article is mostly about his business ventures, not about him as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 11:59, 4 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 Cheil Worldwide. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Barbarian Group

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

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. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Advertising, and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merger with Cheil Worldwide the parent company of the subject. The subject is not notable to be a stand alone article. Ednabrenze (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cheil Worldwide: As parent company. No standalone notability or SIGCOV detected. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:19, 11 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. ✗plicit 00:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Jumah

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

I couldn't find out if this person, a Saudi author is notable as per WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 08:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Law, Travel and tourism, and Saudi Arabia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 4 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!} 04:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Helms

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

Fails WP:MUSICIAN. No sources to speak of. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Gseach brings up his website, a few social media, then off into other people with the same name. What's used in the article now isn't enough, simple directory listings or his charitable foundation (primary). Oaktree b (talk) 12:02, 4 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!} 04:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmer Haider (actor)

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

Recreation of salted title, Ahmer Haider, which has been salted since 2019 due to repeated recreation. Subject does not seem to pass WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject to justify WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Additionally, he was not a lead character in any of the listed films. GrabUp - Talk 08:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, passes neither WP:GNG not WP:NACTOR. Sources are mostly paid for and that is evident in the cited sources. Ednabrenze (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. No significant and noteworthy achievement by the subject's role as an actor to warrant a page on Wikipedia. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Struggling to find independent sources that make a strong case for this article. Additionally, their acting credits seem more minor roles. Waqar💬 18:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nommed. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:17, 10 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!} 04:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pradum (actor)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR.

Declined drafts: Draft:Pradum Shukla (actor), Draft:Pradum Shukla KH-1 (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NACTOR, two minor roles so far, and I can only find passing mentions of him in routine film listings. Wikishovel (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON Geschichte (talk) 22:01, 10 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 delete‎ per author request. ✗plicit 11:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too Lost (company)

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

Unclear if there's enough independent coverage for WP:NCORP. Previous AfD speedied for copyvio Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Lost, also deleted under G12. KH-1 (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Technology, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 4 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. ✗plicit 03:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KNEE-LD

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

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search only came up with FCC licenses. Let'srun (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Washington. Let'srun (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately, funny call signs don’t mean reliable sources to be on Wikipedia. Danubeball (talk) 01:16, 5 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. (early closure) The snowball clause applies, Only clear Keep !votes by experienced contributors, 2 inviting the nominator to withdraw due to the sources on the page and presented here.(non-admin closure) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Chancers

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are multiple reviews from reliable sources, including the Guardian, the Sunday Times and the Evening Standard. What is the problem? Toughpigs (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Toughpigs points out, the article already includes several reviews from reliable sources, including well-known British newspapers. The nominator should considering withdrawing this AfD. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Potton, Ed (2004-12-18). "Something to bray about - Our pick of the festive TV". The Times. Archived from the original on 2024-07-03. Retrieved 2024-07-03.
  The article notes: "The Last Chancers began as a Comedy Lab sketch, directed by Stephen Merchant of The Office and starring Buxton and Steve John Shepherd of This Life. Channel 4 later commissioned it as a two-parter, "obviously with Stephen no longer on board because he was too busy winning awards". The result is more mainstream than his previous stuff, but the pop cultural digs are still sharp. The wry observations on in-band politics and musical tribalism, in particular, make you wonder whether Buxton, like his co-writer MacMurray, has a murky past on the gigging circuit."
2. Smith, Rupert (2004-12-23). "Rock bottom". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-07-03. Retrieved 2024-07-03.
  The review notes: "A new comedy drama about the ups and downs of life in a rock band rings all the right bells, largely because it raises hopes that we might be in for a 21st-century Rock Follies. The Last Chancers (Channel 4, first shown on E4) was not that longed-for event, but it was an agreeable hour that wasn't short of laughs or insight. Writers Tony MacMurray and Adam Buxton have clearly done their time in the lower depths of the music business ..."
3. Ridgway, Imogen (2004-12-22). "Last chance saloon for pub rock hopefuls". Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 2024-07-03. Retrieved 2024-07-03.
  The review notes: "The ineptitude and staggering self-belief of Buxton's Johnny is bound to draw comparisons with David Brent, but there's also something a little Alan Partridge-y about his desire for fame. The characters of his fellow male band members, alas, have not been developed as much. However, the two female leads, guitarist Liv (Valerie Edmond) and gobby Aussie Kirby (Emma Pierson) are played with confidence and add an extra dimension to what might have been a bloke-centric drama."
4. Dugdale, John (2004-12-12). "The Last Chancers - Pick of the day". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2024-07-03. Retrieved 2024-07-03.
  The review notes: "Underused on TV since The Crow Road, Edmond is a welcome signing; but the comedy's problem is its hero, who suffers as many humiliations as Brent and Alan Partridge but lacks their compelling and richly imagined awfulness."
5. Sutcliffe, Thomas (2004-12-23). "Last night's television: Yes, I'm beginning to see the light - Light Fantastic BBC4 The Last Chancers C4". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2024-07-03. Retrieved 2024-07-03.
  The review notes: "The Last Chancers looks a bit like a six-part sitcom that has suffered a rear-end shunt and ended up as a two-part comedy drama. The tone was certainly more sitcom than drama, since Adam Buxton plays the part of Johnny - a white-bread wannabe rocker - with the same slightly arch, sketch-like performance he used on The Adam and Joe Show. Looking at my notes, I can't find a single line that would withstand quotation in cold print as an example of something funny, but that doesn't do any kind of justice to what was a rather engaging comedy."
6. Starkey, Gabrielle (2004-12-11). "The Last Chancers - Multichannel Choice". The Times. Archived from the original on 2024-07-03. Retrieved 2024-07-03.
  The review notes: "There are a lot of influences in here, most notably The Office and Spinal Tap, but it's well observed and written and (all too rare in comedy nowadays) funny. In particular, the characters are all well-defined and instantly recognisable without being total cliches."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Last Chancers to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are already reviews from major British newspapers like The Guardian. Maybe the nominator missed them? Waqar💬 18:30, 6 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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KTLD-CD

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

Subject does not have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. This one technically survived AfD last year in a bundled nomination but that was more about other stations which were included there than this one specifically. Could be redirected either to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. or List of Three Angels Broadcasting Network affiliates. Let'srun (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Like with far too many other HC2/Innovate stations, it's been nothing but national services and no significant coverage (nor the real prospect of any) in the station's 25-30 year history. (The various secular channels that HC2/Innovate has added since taking over from 3ABN ownership are enough to tip me in that direction for the all-that's-needed-here {{R to list entry}}.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Innovate corp stations no sources, no article momentDanubeball (talk) 01:14, 5 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!} 01:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haziq Mu'iz

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

No notability for this footballer who played 24 minutes in the Malaysian league. Sources are databases or transfer statements. Geschichte (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:40, 5 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!} 01:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamizul Izaidi

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

No notability for this footballer who played 61 minutes in the Malaysian league. Sources are databases or transfer statements. Geschichte (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has only played three matches at the highest level, which barely meets WP:FOOTYN. However, I found nothing that could be counted as WP:SIGCOV, only statistics. Tau Corvi (talk) 17:48, 10 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. Thanks to participants who quickly responded and presented sources. I hope they find their way into the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles

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

Fails WP:NORG; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Military, Transportation, and Nebraska. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this does somehow survive deletion I am able to get some photos for the article. I haven't looked much into the Museum itself so I can't currently comment on it's notability. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 04:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not written like an advertisement, instead it needs improvement, not deletion. I'm appalled to see this nomiated for deletion. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I spent a little bit of time tonight cleaning up, updating references, adding a new reference to a 2016 article in Recoil (magazine). We need some help from a wordsmith to expand the text. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I've found some sourcing. Cleanup is possible, not a reason to delete. This is nowhere near TNT level. Star Mississippi 14:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page need to be rewritten to not be like an advertisement, but there are some articles online about the museum that make it notable. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 17:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apart from being written like an advertisement (WP:NORG), this entry fails WP:GNG. Its only sources are its own website. AstridMitch (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2024

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could be notable, but sourcing is primary in the article. I can only find various travel blogs or listings for them [27], without much coverage at all. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasonable coverage in books and news sources. gidonb (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disagreement here among editors on the quality of the sourcing in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I was going to close this as No consensus until I looked at the article and saw that only one source wasn't from the official website. Where are all of these independent sources editors arguing to Keep this article are referring to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it would be great if this article gets expanded, but meanwhile it passes content and sourcing, as is. Good starter article. — Maile (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Byrne, Susan, ed. (2003). Off the Beaten Path: A Travel Guide to More Than 1,000 Scenic and Interesting Places Still Uncrowded and Inviting. Pleasantville, New York: Reader's Digest. p. 207. ISBN 0-7621-0424-4. Retrieved 2024-07-04 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Conceived in 1986 by four friends with a shared passion for historic military vehicles and who thrilled at driving their own vintage models in parades this museum has developed into a place to honor America's other veterans of the battlefront. It boasts a collection of more than 60 meticulously restored fighting machines, ready to roll at a moment's notice. Most vehicles have been acquired within a 150-mile radius of the museum. When tractors were in short supply in the 1940s and early 1950s, local farmers often relied on retired warriors rugged jeeps, trucks, and half-tracks to work their land. The Heartland's dedicated staff has rescued many from rust and oblivion, returning them to mint condition."
2. Garrison, Gretchen M. (2017). Detour Nebraska: Historic Destinations & Natural Wonders. Charleston, South Carolina: The History Press. p. 101. ISBN 978-1-62585-881-8. Retrieved 2024-07-04 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Ever wondered what sitting in a tank would be like? This central Nebraska location encourages exploration of all vehicles on display. Besides tanks, helicopters, halftracks and even ambulances are on display. Jeeps from every branch of service are lined up. From World War II to present day, about one hundred restored vehicles are ready for action. Most are still operational. Military engines are also housed here."
3. Hammel, Paul (2007-06-14). "Museum shows how military goes rolling along" (pages 1 and 2). Omaha World-Herald. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: " Such moments and memories are hallmarks of the Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles, a volunteer-run, admission-free facility off Interstate 80 at the Lexington exit. It displays military memorabilia, including more than 70 restored Jeeps, tanks and helicopters, to honor those who built and used the "Arsenal of Democracy." ... Lauby, 60, is among the three farmers and an attorney three of whom are Vietnam veterans who founded the museum in 1988. ... Most of the vehicles were found within a 150-mile radius of Lexington, but several were purchased through military surplus sales or donated by veterans. Over-the-road truckers and local railroads have donated services to haul the hulking machines. ... One of the museum's six Huey helicopters was shot down five times in Vietnam; another was a medical ambulance during Operation Desert Storm."
4. Duggan, Joe (1999-09-26). "Vehicles of history: Lexington farm boys establish museum". Lincoln Journal Star. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "At the Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles, they've got Nebraska's largest private collection of military jeeps, ambulances, armored personnel carriers and Burma trucks. On the northeast corner of the Interstate 80 Lexington interchange, they've got about 60 restored military vehicles representing every armed conflict from World War I to Operation Desert Storm. ... What Nielsen referred to as a group of naive farm boys and ranchers incorporated as a nonprofit group, took out bank loans, raised money and built the first building on the site. They opened in 1993, but only in good weather. They put the word out that if the flag was up on the pole, the museum was open."
5. Ward, Malena (2005-04-30). "Lex museum depicts memorable Vietnam moment" (pages 1 and 2). Kearney Hub. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles was founded by Vietnam veterans, but it doesn't limit itself to that era. The museum is dedicated to the restoration and preservation of historical military equipment of all types. It is at the northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 283 and the Lexington Interstate 80 interchange at exit 237."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:35, 4 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 Kalabhavan Mani#Tamil films. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singara Chennai

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

No reliable reviews or other sources other than a single production source. A search in Sify ([28]), Chennai Online ([29]), and BizHat ([30]) proves futile. Please find the Kalki and Cine South reviews or redirect to Chennai as all online sources prove to be a description for the city. A WP:BEFORE found a fleeting mention here (சிங்கார சென்னை). DareshMohan (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chennai: Per nom. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Kalabhavan_Mani#Tamil_films. Poor sources with no significant coverage and reliable critic reviews. RangersRus (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I, the nominator, withdraw, my nomination in light of 3 new production sources. Thanks @Srivin:. DareshMohan (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus and two different redirect target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to keep if sources covering production are judged sufficient; if redirected, Kalabhavan_Mani#Tamil_films is imv a much better target, but List of Tamil films of 2004#July—September (where it's also listed) would seem even more appropriate, as other cast members have a page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:48, 4 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Ravanusa explosion

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

Just a news story. All sources are news sources and it did not have any major societal ramifications to meet WP:NEVENT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Italy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is further coverage on the Italian article, but if that's enough to pass NEVENT, I'm not sure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I genuinely don't remember what I was looking at here, did my brain make up sources? Doesn't pass nevent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is coverage in international sources as well CNN NBC Al Jazeera. The fact that plenty of national sources Rai Ansa also reported on the following trial shows the depth and duration of coverage needed to fulfill WP:NEVENT. @PARAKANYAA: I would like to hear why you think the coverage is not sufficient to pass NEVENT. Broc (talk) 19:58, 2 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!} 01:18, 4 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 00:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vii

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

Besides a single Engadget review (the "Wii vs. Vii First Shot" source), the sources appear to either be unreliable (such as GoNintendo) or trivial mentions such as minor announcements/mentions, making it fail WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, no substantial coverage. The Banner talk 15:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wii with further discussion of knockoff Wii consoles based on these sources: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to VII as {{R from other capitalisation}}. Charcoal feather (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's redirected it will have to be moved to Vii (console) beforehand. A new redirect at this name can be created if necessary (though it's not actually necessary) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it to Vii (console) is a good idea. Dr. Precursor (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. Article page moves can occur if an article is Kept but can not be carried out by a closer because it's an editing decision. If you want an article moved, first vote to Keep it then a move can be discussed. But right now, we also have arguments to Delete and Redirect so no consensus exists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't have the sources to meet the WP:GNG. The Wii is already an WP:FA without a mention of the Vii, so I believe that shows that's it's of little importance of the Wii and not worth a redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 14:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
@Sergecross73: While I believe the Wii article may be in good shape, that doesn't necessarily mean it is complete. There's multiple quality sources discussing the creation of knockoffs of the Wii, so I don't think it'd be a problem to mention this fact and the existence of the Vii in particular. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. FA's are not perfect. But I think it's telling that an article that has existed for almost 2 decades, and has had enough experienced editor's interest to get it to FA status, never felt it was important enough to include this... Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wii clones. Partially because of the sources by Cukie Gherkin, there are enough sources for Wii knockoffs as a whole to be notable, if not the Vii alone. Dr. Precursor (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't redirect to an article that doesn't exist, it'll just be deleted. Also don't delete comments and write new things. WP:STRIKE the old comments if they dont apply anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, If a Wii clone section with a mention to Vii is ever written at Wii, this can be recreated and redirected there. --Mika1h (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a good suggestion. I may work on something related to Wii clones. Dr. Precursor (talk) 15:03, 9 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 00:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mira-Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar Police

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

Rejected, contested draft. Moved back against advice of HD. There is no indication they meet N:ORG. A merger would be fine, but would likely need protected. Star Mississippi 00:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, India, and Maharashtra. Star Mississippi 00:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify then salt the page until notability enough referenced. -Lemonaka 01:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources that talk about inauguration, appointments and organization structure and most of these sources are from the organization's own website. There is no significant indepth coverage in secondary independent sources. Per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NORG. RangersRus (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point to note that, out of 11 almost 6 references are from different news articles, and rest which is there referenced is the actual information, which is true and not for promotion by the website... Pls review again the page references & visit those references Pratik.S2005 (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the website is a government law enforcement website. Pratik.S2005 (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6 sites are the police stations own website mbvv.mahapolice.gov.in and 1 another government source has nothing but a link to this police station site. So these are all unreliable and not secondary independent sources. 4 others news site have nothing significant that satisfies notability. It does not have any criteria to pass the notability guidelines for organizations. RangersRus (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, just to correct, it's an article for Police Commissionerate just like Mumbai Police & not a Police Station... Pratik.S2005 (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is requested to review the topic, it is well notable as per the guideline for notability by the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratik.S2005 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redraftify until it meets notability guidelines. Procyon117 (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closer, article now at Mira-Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar Police (cc @Ahecht: Star Mississippi 01:20, 10 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.

[1] "Andhra Pradesh రాష్ట్రంలో ఎందరు సలహాదారులున్నారు.. ఆరా తీస్తున్న ప్రభుత్వం". Samayam Telugu (in Telugu).

[1]