Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 08 June 10 >

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 no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back Porch Records[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, was unable to find any significant coverage other than brief mentions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Wisconsin. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. I'm confused as to why this was taken to AfD at all. The nominator initially redirected it to a list page of EMI sublabels, which I reverted because it was not subject to any discussion, nothing was merged, and the target had no information about the label. The nominator then immediately brought it to AfD, when the obvious thing to do would be to start a merge discussion; I mean, for Pete's sake, this label put out full lengths from people like Frank Black, Shannon McNally, Charlie Sexton, and John Hammond Jr., so of course we don't want a redlink here. Chubbles (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to sign your comments and if you are proposing a Redirect or Merge, identify a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Although the artists associated with Back Porch Records clearly pass the WP:NBASIC threshold, the label can't inherit that notability per WP:NOTINHERITED. I was able to find a couple mentions: Aspen Times and Billboard but those are just mentions. Seems like Back Porch Records itself might best be served as mentions on Universal Music and/or Virgin Records pages? MertenMerten (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Recent !votes for delete have surfaced (the NOTINHERITED concerns are misplaced, I think; there's no reason for us to cover a label but for the fact that it published notable artists), but why would we prefer a redlink over a merge to the parent label? Chubbles (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If this article were Merged, what would be the Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably the best merge target would be Narada Records, its parent label for most of its run, per [1] (note that this source calls it "a major force in roots and Americana music styles"). Chubbles (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chubbles, Narada Records is a redirect. If you use one of the commonly used script, you'd see this because it's in a green font color. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its target, Narada Productions, would be the target then. In practice, people often call this label Narada Records. Chubbles (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I find WP:NOTINHERITED to be a major detriment to Wikipedia as a whole. We cannot limit the scope of knowledge in such a way and consider this project complete. This is a strong keep. Fireandflames2 (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Total lack of SIRS coverage. There are good reasons why companies need to meet NORG. JoelleJay (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is redlinking this title preferable when there is a clear merge target? (Leaving aside that the label certainly meets WP:MUSIC's sense of an important indie label.) Chubbles (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Narada Productions per above. Special:WhatLinksHere/Back_Porch_Records indicates that this should remain bluelinked, but there's a lack of sigcov for a keep. (It's possible that a future target could be an article for Back Porch Record's founder Ken Pedersen, though there aren't enough sources visible to establish GNG currently). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Looks like a consensus to Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of past ESPN personalities[edit]

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

Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 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! 22:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Agree on keeping, the topic has received coverage in secondary sources. Waqar💬 17:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Waseem Abbas#Television serials. Star Mississippi 02:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ladoon Mein Pali[edit]

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination. I am doubting WP:Before is done or not as received some coverage [6] [7] [8], [9]. Also it was broadcasted in 2014 and many Pakistani newspapers remove old coverage from their websites. Why a series broadcasted in 2014 need nomination discussion after more than a decade or their is some hidden agenda behind it. Libraa2019 (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Libraa2019, Let me evaluate each source individually.
      1. This coverage by Daily Times is limited to a single line which means it is ROTM and this makes it insufficient for establishing WP:GNG.
      2. Both Daily Pakistan's coverage (this and this) is merely WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS
      3. This Daily Times' coverage also merely WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS.
      I suggest you to please refrain from making WP:ATA and/or accuse me of being on some hidden agenda [10]—Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've strike off that comments so no need to highlight and as the admin said you copy pasted same wordings in almost every nomination, therefore it seems you have not done research before. The series broadcasted in 2014 is likely notable considering these sources as most of the newspaper remove that much old coverage and if it does'nt meet notability then why it was not nominated by you earlier and after a decade suddenly all of these AFD's. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Libraa2019, Is it against the rules if my rationale are same across all the nominations? By the way, my reasoning isn't copied verbatim if you look closely. Each article is evaluated individually and I've done my homework (WP:BEFORE) before hitting the AfD button. And that is why sufficient coverage in RS haven't been found yet which means my nominations are legit. And unless the sources are unreliable or dubious, old archives can typically be found, so your excuse doesn't make sense to me. Regarding why am I tossing these nominations out now? Simple. I've just decided it's high time we clean up the mess around here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: input from disinterested parties would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, clearly not notable 48JCL TALK 10:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK I am fine with redirection as well. — Saqib (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa Rachel Solomon[edit]

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

No obvious reason why bandmember should have own page. Doesn't seem to pass WP:BANDMEMBER. Very few internal links. Seaweed (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as "Louisa Solomon" (as this article should be called) easily meets WP:BASIC. Agree that not every band member should have their own Wikipedia article, but in her case, it is justified because of the focused coverage she has received about her anti-Zionist views while identifying as Jewish and queer. This was discussed in The Washington Post (Online) in 2014 when the band's scheduled performance at a festival run by the DC Jewish Community Center was canceled due to her stated political views. There is also a 2014 Wall Street Journal Online article about her as well as the band. If you compare the band's article (The Shondes) with her biography, the two are distinct – and it's important to note that many reviews about The Shondes (e.g. in Rolling Stone) don't even discuss their religion and politics and the band also includes at least one non-Jewish member. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a fair point, but I just don't see the notability myself. Doesn't seem that significant to merit an entire article. Maybe one sentence in the band's page at best in context of the cancelled concert. Seaweed (talk) 18:41, 6 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! 22:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There is additional coverage about Louisa Solomon becoming the on-campus rabbi at The New School in 2023 in this article in NY Jewish Week and about her involvement in an October 2023 rally organized by Jewish Voice for Peace, where she brought her two children in this 2023 The New York Times article. Both have now been added to the article. Taken cumulatively with the coverage already mentioned in my keep !vote above, it demonstrates WP:SUSTAINED coverage over time for a Jewish punk musician who is also a rabbi-in-training and a political activist. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has significant reliable sources coverage such as The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, After Ellen, and The New York Times so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jemiah Jefferson[edit]

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

This subject appears to fail both WP:ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. JFHJr (㊟) 22:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Drmies offered this one a speedy nearly 13 years ago, which was contested by the creator. No apparent notability has emerged since that time. JFHJr (㊟) 23:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. JFHJr (㊟) 22:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Colorado, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree that the article does not satisfy either WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. The references provided are insufficient to indicate notability, and a search for the subject in the news yields no results. In terms of reviews, there is: a review on a personal blog from 2021 and a forum post from 2007 and that is all. Manyyassin (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, JFHJr. Fun fact: I once interviewed for a job at Reed, and one of the perks was that you could bring your dog to class. So that speedy template was removed a few times by the creator, as was a PROD by User:Karl 334. Yeah, I agree--there seems to be no proof of notability here. Delete. Oh, thank you Manyyassin for looking into it also--those things you uncovered don't help here. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What was the cat policy? AFAF. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An author, for sure, but other than confirming the publication of her books, all I found was one review in Publishers Weekly (not terribly enthusiastic) - and none in Kirkus, which reviews a heck of a lot of what gets published. She writes Horror and there is one paragraph (which I believe is a PR blurb because it seems familiar after checking book sales pages) in a book called "100+ Black Women in Horror". Unfortunately, it's a Lulu-published book. That's it. I can confirm that she works at Dark Horse Comics in Portland. Beyond that a few name-checks. Lamona (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lamona: I agree. I saw that review WP:BEFORE and I came to the same conclusion as to the publisher. It's a Who's Who from Lulu. It got my hopes up at the time. JFHJr (㊟) 23:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Myrlin Hermes[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. I can't think of any other applicable grounds for notability for this subject. JFHJr (㊟) 21:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. JFHJr (㊟) 21:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, India, England, California, Hawaii, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've added several refs and details to the article (while removing unsourced content). There is no significant coverage of Hermes. Her first book won a Lambda Literary Award for Bisexual Literature in 2011, but even if that's considered an important enough award for WP:ANYBIO #1, I consider that the absence of any coverage of her outweighs that. I found a few reviews of her first book in major newspapers, so an article on Careful What You Wish For could be justified. (But I'll note that the Washington Post reviewer generously concluded, "Myrlin Hermes is 23 years old, an age at which having published a book at all is a substantial accomplishment. There's plenty of time for her to turn into a real writer."[11]) Schazjmd (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vaidam Health[edit]

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

Created evading a salting of Vaidam. Sources:

  1. No mention of the topic I can find
  2. A student's final exam is not a reliable source
  3. Consists entirely of content attributed to the company, failing WP:ORGIND
  4. Not in-depth enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH
  5. Interview - consists entirely of content attributed to the company, failing WP:ORGIND
  6. Interview - consists entirely of content attributed to the company, failing WP:ORGIND
  7. This reads like a press release, despite the lack of explicit language admitting to such, and has no listed author so I'm not convinced it's reliable.
  8. Consists entirely of content attributed to the company, failing WP:ORGIND
  9. This looks promising, but I can't access it.
  10. No mention of the topic I can find
  11. WP:TOI should not be used to establish notability for companies, and in any event except for the first paragraph which doesn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH this consists entirely of content attributed to the company, failing WP:ORGIND
  12. Does not discuss the topic in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH
  13. Does not discuss the topic in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and given the tone and the lack of a listed author I'm not convinced it's reliable either.
  14. The article itself is both from the Times and India and does not discuss the topic in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The case study itself is more interesting, but does that make a reliable source?
  15. Duplicate of source 9
  16. Primary source

So there may be a vague glimmer of merit smothered under the REFBOMB, but not enough to let this title-gaming slip by without review. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete: made to evade a salting, fails multiple guidelines, cites various strange sources. if that's not grounds for deletion i don't know what is. Noelle!!! (summon a demon or read smth) 16:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or maybe redirect to Medical_tourism#India. I'd put this on my to-do list because there was so much spamming going on in the general category, the sourcing looked extremely thin, and I wasn't sure how to assess the case study, but either way I don't think the case study is enough. Valereee (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    did few changes in article, share your suggestion again Captain sparrow199 (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reverted an attempt by the creator to move this to draft namespace out of process while the AfD was still pending. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, written like an advertisement, and created by gaming the system.Thanks,NeuropolTalk 13:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    which section, do you think, is advertisement? Captain sparrow199 (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and mild salting. ‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine radio station salt evasions[edit]

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

Two articles on radio stations in the Philippines that were created evading a salt on the unprefixed callsign (DWIP, DWYE), and contain no real evidence of notability. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt - WP:A7. BrigadierG (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: The earlier deletions and saltings were as late as 2016, which was still a time of looser, non-GNG inclusion standards in this topic area (a deletion in that era would indicate being especially substandard). While both have been redirects to the list of MBC Media Group stations at various points, that has been contested enough (the most recent ones led to this nomination) that I see no reason why the page histories should be retained any further. While there may still be some value in redirects from these titles, even those should still be accompanied by long-term protection and in addition, not an alternative, to deletion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per nom --Lenticel (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both meet WP:GNG. Sources mentioned are reliable enough and secondary, with most of them in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we strike off this person's votes here? Seriously, none of the refs offer WP:SIGCOV, and the sole WP:RS in DWIP had the most passing of mentions. The sole WP:RS in DWYE that maybe SIGCOV
    is behind a pay wall. Delete and salt DWIP, AGF no comment on DWYE. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is clear, and approaching WP:SNOW. BD2412 T 03:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De Joya Griffith and Company[edit]

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

A promotional article for a small, defunct accountancy company. The article is referenced only by press releases, derivative churnalism thereof, and ultra-low-value listicles. I can find no substantial independent coverage it at all (WP:ORGCRITE). The only somewhat notable thing I can find out about the company is it, and its principals, being punished by the SEC (but that's a primary source, and the affair does not appear to have engendered much in the way of coverage either). Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 20:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:G11 BrigadierG (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTADVERT This was originally written in 2011 as "... is an American CPA firm" as online advertising for the firm. It appears to have gone out of business in 2015. — Maile (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Has nothing going for it in any way, shape of form. Nowhere near satisfyin notability. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I couldn't find any credible sources that discuss the topic of this article in a substantial way. Deletion might be the best course of action at this time. Waqar💬 17:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kubi Turkana[edit]

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

I couldn't find anything about this farm on the web except a map that may show it (complicated map). Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete: is not WP:NOTABLE, has no WP:SIGCOV, has more images than words, and that's just the stuff i can think of off the top of my head. Noelle!!! (summon a demon or read smth) 16:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shemaroo Entertainment#TV Channels. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chumbak TV[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; written like a TV guide. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shemaroo Entertainment#TV Channels. Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shemaroo TV[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; written like a TV guide. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhubaneswar Club[edit]

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

On its face, it fails WP:NORG. Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurien Gardner[edit]

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

Neither a redirect to Hoyt nor to Ginjer Buchanan, where neither the imprint nor this three book series appears to merit mention makes sense, so bringing this here. The books don't appear to have merited note as a series,and there's no indication this use of a pen name was. Star Mississippi 19:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Welcome to all of our new editors. I hope you stay past the closing of this discussion and help improve articles, like the rest of us spend time doing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Luk[edit]

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

The subject does not meet general notability requirements or the notability requirements for a politician. The only coverage of the subject is by local and obscure outlets who provide run-of-the-mill coverage of him as a candidate in local elections. thena (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree that subject lacks required notability for an article. Williehuggies (talk)
Williehuggies (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bright cold day in april (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My bad for not providing Chinese translation in my first comment, I have placed the translated versions of the five Chinese sources below:
Translations
1.Wen Wei Po: In this UK general election, there are 9 British Chinese candidates running, including 29-year-old Conservative Party candidate Johnny Luk, who was born in Hong Kong. Luk, who is running for Parliament for the first time, recounts his experience of racial discrimination during his studies, revealing that he was once told to "go back to China." He calls on the Chinese community to speak up more, to drive improvements in the government's policies and funding for the Chinese community, and even to influence the UK's foreign relations with East Asia.
Luk moved to Europe with his parents as a child, living in the Netherlands and Germany, before settling in the UK at the age of 10. Luk reveals that he had few Chinese friends growing up, and was even bullied for his race. "When I was studying in a boarding school, a group of people surrounded me and shouted 'go back to China.' I will never forget this experience." Luk later took up rowing, and won the national under-18 rowing championship in 2009, gradually regaining his confidence. He started getting involved in politics during university.
Johnson supports Luk in a video
After graduating, Luk worked in the UK government's Brexit department, later moving to the HR consulting firm Adecco. In recent years, the UK political arena has been severely polarized due to the Brexit controversy, which has motivated Luk to run for office. He reveals that some of his friends were surprised when they learned he was running, but he believes that as radical political views are gaining momentum, moderates need to step up.
During the 2016 Brexit referendum, Luk chose to remain in the EU, but this did not prevent him from being nominated to contest the Hampstead and Kilburn constituency in Greater London, challenging the Labour incumbent. Prime Minister Boris Johnson even filmed a promotional video openly supporting Luk.
Proud of Chinese culture
In the previous election, the Conservatives suffered a heavy defeat of over 15,000 votes in Hampstead and Kilburn, but in 2015 they lost by just over 1,100 votes. Although the Brexit Party has also fielded a candidate to challenge the seat, Luk said he is confident of winning, and called on Liberal Democrat supporters to switch to him to prevent a Labour victory under leader Keir Starmer.
As a ethnic minority candidate, Luk strongly criticized the Labour Party's ongoing anti-Semitism scandals. He also described some liberal demands to protect the rights of EU citizens as actually discriminating against non-EU immigrants, asking "Why not bring in Hong Kong nurses? My Auntie is one, and she is very excellent."
Luk described the current UK as full of uncertainties, and hopes that through participating in politics, he can add a calm and rational voice to the UK, and promote further integration of the British Chinese community into society. Luk pointed out that China has a rich culture and history from which the world can learn, and he is also proud of his Chinese identity.

2.The News Lens: This includes 32-year-old Johnny Luk, who contested the Hampstead and Kilburn constituency in the 2019 general election.

Luk's father is from Hong Kong and his mother is Taiwanese. He grew up living in various European countries like Poland and Germany before settling in the UK. After graduating from university with a degree in natural sciences, Luk worked in government in 2012 before joining the Conservative Party two years later. "The UK Chinese community is relatively quiet compared to the Chinese communities in Canada and Australia, and the people who guided me happened to be from the Conservative Party. They tried to encourage more East Asians to get involved in politics, which gradually drew me in."
As a former co-director of the Conservative Friends of the Chinese, Luk candidly acknowledged that in recent years, the Chinese community has faced a difficult situation due to anti-Chinese sentiment arising from COVID-19 and geopolitical tensions. However, this has not dampened the Chinese community's enthusiasm for political engagement. Luk explained that the Conservatives are adept at reaching out to the Chinese community and champion diversity, catering to groups from Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, rather than just representing mainland China. He added, "The Conservatives are very rational and organized, with a rigorous candidate selection process involving testing and interviews. In contrast, Labour often needs to obtain the support of trade unions, which explains why the Conservatives have more Chinese candidates." He particularly noted that Hong Kong people will become a significant voter base that cannot be ignored.
Despite his defeat in the 2019 election, Luk is already preparing for the next general election. "I understand that no matter what I do, I will be subject to media criticism, so I must have a thick skin and focus on my own affairs. I also used to work from 4 a.m., so I need to be clear about my capabilities and focus on shaking hands with voters and showing them I care. Lastly, I need to just enjoy the process and not be too rigid."

3.Phoenix Television: Johnny Luk, 25 years old, followed his parents to immigrate to the UK when he was 10 years old. After graduating from a university in the UK, he now works at a non-profit organization, helping university graduates in the UK realize their entrepreneurial dreams.

His personal experiences and professional experience have made him feel that the UK needs to be closely connected with a world power like China. He is very glad to see Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to the UK, believing that the timing is right.
Luk, a Hong Kong immigrant living in the UK, said: "I think this is a step in the right direction. The relationship has been getting closer and closer over the years, including in terms of economic partnership. For example, the UK Chancellor wants to increase UK exports to China from 25 billion to 30 billion pounds. And in terms of culture, there are more than 500,000 Chinese people in the UK, and more than 100,000 international students. We are training future leaders for China and the world. In the long run, I am very optimistic and things will only get better."
On the 21st, President Xi met with UK Prime Minister Cameron and witnessed the signing of a 40 billion pound cooperation agreement between the two countries. Johnny Luk, who has worked at the UK Government's Trade and Investment Office for three years, believes this will play an important role in the UK's future development.
Luk said that the perfect friendship is based on mutual respect, and good relations need to be maintained. The UK Prime Minister needs to visit China regularly, and Chinese state leaders such as the President should also come to the UK again. The UK also needs to catch up with some other countries, of course China has very close relations with its neighboring countries. From the trade indicators, Germany is stronger than the UK, and we still have room for development. It is very crucial to unleash the potential of the Chinese living in the UK.

4.BBC: "Seeing what is happening (in Hong Kong), I feel very sad," said 29-year-old Conservative Party candidate Johnny Luk. Although China is sometimes controversial, the China-UK relationship is still much better than the relationship between Russia and the UK. "I hope I can build a bridge between China and the UK, and enhance mutual understanding," said the 29-year-old Conservative Party candidate Johnny Luk.

Luk's father is from Hong Kong and his mother is from Taiwan. Probably due to his Chinese ethnic background, he is often asked about his attitude towards China. "I look Chinese, but I don't represent the country of China. I am British first. I'm proud of my ancestry, but that doesn't mean I agree with all of China's decisions."
5.Wen Wei Po: The 25-year-old Johnny Luk followed his parents to immigrate to the UK when he was 10 years old. Now, after graduating from university, he works at a non-profit organization, helping university graduates in the UK realize their entrepreneurial dreams. He expressed that he is very pleased to see the improvement in China-UK relations, and this will benefit the people of both countries. "I think this is a step in the right direction. The relationship has been getting closer and closer over the years, including in terms of economic partnership. For example, the UK Chancellor wants to increase UK exports to China from 25 billion pounds (about HK$2,993 billion) to 30 billion pounds (about HK$3,592 billion)."
In my opinion, even if the two English sources discussed below are excluded, these five sources already provided enough SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG and should be kept. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he's elected in the general election next month, the article can be recreated but for the time being he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. As to the Camden New Journal and Islington Tribune articles mentioned by others, these seem to be cut-and-paste jobs from press releases put out by his campaign, which is sadly the norm in British local newspapers. I would argue that they do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Lincolnite (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lincolnite: Hi Lincolnite. I have also presented five Chinese sources which documented his life not related to the elections in SIGCOV. Please review the sources I have provided, and enlighten me why you find the notability is still not demonstrated from them. If you need help with the translations, please let me know as well. (Edit:I have provided translations above.) —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - nothing he has done prior to or including his candidacy are notable enough to warrant an article. Half a dozen puff pieces on the same subject is not significant enough to meet the GNG significant coverage requirement. Saltywalrusprkl (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He is barely mentioned in the Chinese language articles, which are all about people running for office, and aren't even specifically on him. SportingFlyer T·C 01:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer: Hmm... Mind reading the two Wen Wei Po and the Phoenix Television articles again? Not sure how you came up with the conclusion that he was "barely mentioned" and was mentioned along with other candidates. Two of them aren't even related to elections at all (which were published in 2015). —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One Wen Wei Po article is about Xi Jinping visiting England, as is the Phoenix Television article. He's mentioned, but that's clearly not significant coverage of him - it looks like he was just interviewed for an article. The other Wen Wei Po article is simply about how he's running as a candidate, which falls afoul of our policies on political candidates (just passing GNG doesn't count since almost all candidates receive some coverage.) SportingFlyer T·C 05:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer: Thanks for reviewing the sources again. I respectfully beg to differ with the last part of your statement. NPOL (along with all NBLP) can be mutually exclusive from GNG. An article can pass GNG and be kept even if there are concerns about NPOL. I also want to note that I disagree with some of the delete !votes in this discussion that brought up stuffs like poll results, which have no bearing on notability. However, since multiple editors have found the Chinese sources to be run-of-the-mill, the consensus seems clear and I no longer have a strong rationale to argue that the subject person meets GNG. Therefore, I will retract my keep !vote and instead go for a Weak delete. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 06:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is true, but we consistently interpret NPOL and the GNG in such a way that people who are only notable for being political candidates are not notable unless their candidacy was notable in some way, because all candidates generally receive at least some coverage, but tend not to have lasting notability ("you can't make yourself notable.") If our subject were notable for other reasons, there'd be no reason not to keep the article. SportingFlyer T·C 15:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer: Yep, what you said is exactly true. That was the reason why I tried to present sources outside of his political career in the first place, such as his early life and him being representative for an NGO, to prove that he passes GNG and despite the election not taking place, NPOL should not be a concern. Anyway, glad that we made a consensus here. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 12:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No evidence at all that it is a cut and paste article from press releases- indeed the examples cited are clearly interviews or written neutrally. Also note it makes no sense to delete an article just before a general election - this deletion request is clearly politically motivated. Editorman75 (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This deletion request just before the UK elections appears to be politically motivated. The person in question is the conservative candidate for the Milton Keynes Central parliamentary constituency in the July 4th 2024 UK parliamentary election. Emailani (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Editorman75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete - Website already suffers with half a dozen pages for people who do not need one, and given that polling suggests that he will be unlikely to win does not really add to this article's case. Agree with everything else stated so far. Tweedle (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an article on an unelected political candidate which reads like a CV and who is not otherwise notable. If he wins, we can restore the article. SportingFlyer T·C 19:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: The timing of this deletion request seems strange, just weeks before a General Election. His page was up all the way till now, when arguably he is more significant now than before. The only poll that matters is the actual election result, so this comment also does not add to the debate. Editorman75 (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Editorman75 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

He’s also a regular writer for world federation rowing, an Olympic sport: https://worldrowing.com/2023/05/10/the-irish-powerhouse-that-is-skibbereen-rowing-club/
  • I see absolutely no reason to move to delete this article, other than political motivation from rival candidates. This should be a factual and unbiased repository, regardless of potential election outcomes this is a person of note to be recorded. Editorman75 (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Editorman75 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

  • There are several people advocating to keep this article, so I should probably expand my comment - every single source in the article is about him being a candidate, which we do not consider notable under the GNG and NPOL - local or general does not matter. The sources presented here are either election related or written by him, or he's been interviewed, including the non-English sources, which I translated. If he gets elected, he'll be eligible for an article, and I don't know why this is up for deletion now, but it's probably just because someone noticed. But this is a classic "only a candidate" article. SportingFlyer T·C 01:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The first editor suggested he was a local candidate. This is not true, he is not a candidate for the local elections - but for the General Election in 2019 and 2024[1][2]. That should heighten his notability. This was also highlighted by PR Week[3], a major publication. He was also mentioned by a range of major papers introducing the UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, including the Evening Standard[4]. In terms of other notability, he is clearly been a writer[5] for Al Jazeera, a major publication and the HuffPost[6]. RogueWanderer29 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— RogueWanderer29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Please see WP:NPOL. Simply being a candidate for office does not confer notability. The Evening Standard is routine campaign coverage, primarily about Rishi Sunak campaigning in Buckinghamshire, and only name-checks Luk right at the end: "He was introduced at the Q&A session by Johnny Luk, the Conservative candidate for Milton Keynes Central" - that is a long way from demonstrating notability. AusLondonder (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As above. The broadcast media is obliged to give equal coverage for all candidates in a constituency per British rules, and non-partisan local newspapers will also attempt this level of impartiality. Luk ran in a Labour fiefdom in 2019 and got under half the amount of votes of the winner. He's forecast to lose in 2024. [19] Also, Al Jazeera and HuffPost enlist thousands of bloggers and writers from all over the world, these people are not employees and their writings are not endorsed by the publications. More importantly, no third party is writing about Luk's notability as a writer for AJ and HP. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Milton Keynes Central". BBC.
  2. ^ Whocanivotefor UK General Election https://whocanivotefor.co.uk/person/71469/ UK General Election. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ Owen, Jonathan. "Conservative general election comms revealed". PR Weekly.
  4. ^ Cecil, Nicholas. "RIshi Sunak challenged over partygate scandal fine by man whose mum died in Covid pandemic".
  5. ^ Luk, Johnny. https://www.aljazeera.com/author/johnny-luk. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  6. ^ Luk, Johnny. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/johnny-luk. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • Keep WP:SIGCOV in both UK and Chinese language sources. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for closing admin Please be aware both RogueWanderer29 and Editorman75 have been created 20 hours ago and made zero contributions other than at this AfD. Editorman75 has also attempted to !vote three times. AusLondonder (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this in any way diminish my valid opinion? You also state in your bio that you are strongly against people pushing their political agendas. I feel that in pushing for deletion of this article that exactly what ‘thena’ hopes to achieve Editorman75 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No it doesn't but it does if you keep spamming Keeps everywhere Tweedle (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article is just self-promotion. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for all these accounts saying this is politically motivated, there are completely germane reasons why this would be up for deletion now. There is higher attention on the page about the constituency if there is a new election for editors to write about. A page on someone of such a low profile would have passed by unnoticed until then. Also bear in mind that Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, having a Wikipedia article isn't like having a website or a Twitter account, it's hardly a medium that would benefit a political candidate and highly likely to do the reverse. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftity currently does not meet WP:GNG. In the event of his election, would meet WP:NPOL. This is WP:TOOSOON at best and has been since its creation. Orange sticker (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Walker (educator)[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC/WP:NSCIENTIST. Third-party (independent, non-primary) sources lending significant in-depth coverage appear not to exist, and are unlikely to crop up in the future. JFHJr (㊟) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Head of an educational nonprofit is the sort of thing that needs WP:GNG-notability not WP:PROF-notability and we have no evidence of that. I searched for enough book reviews for WP:AUTHOR-notability as our article also lists him as a book author, but didn't find them. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In the future, if you "correct" a comment, the protocol is to strike the old phrase and insert the new one, don't rewrite your nomination statement. Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godfrey Nyakana[edit]

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

Am article about a boxer that doesn't meet WP:SIRS on source assessment. The article in general doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep aside from the fact that WP:SIRS is for organizations and the nom misidentifies him as a weightlifter when he's actually a boxer (seriously?), there's substantial existing precedent that a podium finish at an elite international event generally makes an athlete notable - for example see WP:NTRACK, WP:NGYMNASTICS, WP:NTRIATHLON. The commonwealth games isn't the Olympics, but there's also WP:NOLYMPICS where any podium finish makes the cut. The commonwealth games is one of the most prestigious sporting competitions in the world, I think a gold medal makes the cut.
He was also the subject of a documentary - https://www.badlefthook.com/2015/8/13/9147775/titleshot-20-year-old-boxing-film-seeks-completion BrigadierG (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was an error that can be avoided. I have corrected it. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. BrigadierG (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think I gave enough reliable sources if you had properly checked those sources before tagging it for deletion. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 03:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Tertel[edit]

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

Autobiography of a not-yet-notable WP:ARCHITECT and WP:PROF. She's a highly qualified architect and university lecturer, but I can find no coverage of her work in independent, secondary sources, and her work in Google Scholar is lightly cited. Main claim to notability appears to be her notable relative, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited, and the sources cited mention her only in passing at a memorial service. I could find no mentions of her as a politician. Wikishovel (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per COI and WP:NN. There are a lot of architects and doctors. What makes this person special to add to Wikipedia? Maybe she could clarify it in the article itself.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KPDF-CD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arizona. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Even the ex-Una Vez Más stations seem to have the lack of notability and significant coverage shared by many of the other eventual HC2/Innovate stations. Beyond the 2007 at-least-plans for a local newscast, the overall history is the usual parade of national services of many an unremarkable LPTV. That said, its absence from the bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles might hint at something being out there… but this isn't the article's first nomination either, as it survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KPDF-CA in 2006, a time of far looser inclusion standards in this topic area than today (but in hindsight, the lone "delete" in that discussion's rejection of the "FCC license means notable" consensus of the era might actually be more in line with the GNG-based standards that followed this 2021 RfC, and have taken more hold over the past year or so). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to HC2 list I spent quite a bit of time trying to find SIGCOV of this station that I thought would have been a SIGCOV slam dunk. (This is my home market, I believe I created this article as an IP, and I participated in the 2006 AfD!) It's tougher than I expected. This station and KUDF-LP, which for many years were co-owned, were able to get on cable in the metro market (because Una Vez Más paid for it!), but the problem in finding regular coverage was that Azteca América never developed roots in local programming. They tried—they had a talk show called Tu vida con Cecy when they launched, and they had Phoenix-specific news inserts in 2013—but it never really worked out, much like the network. And there is no coverage of KPSW-LP pre-Azteca. Now, it's just another HC2 diginet coatrack on which Visión Latina—a national TV network so lacking in media coverage I cannot make an article for it—hangs its hat. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Welp, another HC2 Holdings station descends to the list. Danubeball (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lew Childre. Owen× ☎ 17:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HeartMath Institute[edit]

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

Content previously deleted for lack of notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartmath Institute, recreated under a trivially different capitalization. This is a fringe institute, for which the refbomb of references are either passing mentions, not independent, or not reliable sources. This should at best be redirected to Lew Childre, as the original Heartmath Institute has been. BD2412 T 17:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gargleafg, Jytdog, Bon courage, 79616gr, and TTTommy111: Pinging participants in the previous discussion, although most are not long absent (and one has changed username). BD2412 T 17:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|✉ 10:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - On its face, the organization seems notable. However, a closer look at the references seem like it is simply promoting itself. For instance, this article in Wired has a disclaimer that the writer received one of the devices and is not a doctor (curious why a non-medical professional would do a story on it). Then there is this in the Business Insider but looks like all the information was supplied by the org ("According to Doc Childre, founder of the Institute of HeartMath") so not independent. They simply do not pass the test of WP:SIRS. If anything, a redirect to Lew Childre as an WP:ATD would suffice. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of the Business Insider quote you mention to is distinguish between what the institute claims their device can do and the author's own review. This is exactly what an independent source should do. That being said, I think there's better sources than the Business Insider article anyway. ChaseK (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Fringe but notable. For WP:RS about their non-science claims there's 1 from WP:INDYUK, 2 3 from Wired, and 4 from Engadget which are all rated reliable in WP:PS. With respect to "coherence" there's a literature review 5, and for their fringe theories as per WP:PARITY there's also 6 by James Coyne and 7 by Steven Novella. There's plenty of reliable information here you just have to use the sources judiciously. Since Lew Childre's notability mostly derives from the institute, if anything I'd add a redirect the other way; there's far more coverage of the institute than him. ChaseK (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgive my skepticism, but you are the article creator, and of your total of somewhat less than 350 edits to Wikipedia, more than 2/3 have been with respect to this sole topic. I would infer from those numbers that you might have a disproportionate sense of its notability. BD2412 T 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • This seems to be an attack on me rather than a reply to the substance of my comment. The purpose of deletion discussions is to determine whether the subject meets the notability criterion, not whether editors have a "disproportionate sense" of notability. Nor do I think it's appropriate for an administrator to disparage the contribution counts of a (newish) user. ChaseK (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be clear, I find the citations to be insufficient for an entity that, even as a non-profit, must still meet WP:NCORP, which is a fairly high standard given the number of companies that would like to see their products featured in Wikipedia. It is fairly well-established that having a notable product does not automatically make the manufacturer notable, and a product review that mentions the manufacturer is still a passing mention for that manufacturer. BD2412 T
          • To quote WP:PRODUCT: "In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article." In this case the org has broader notability than its products, and so the org article should be preferred over product articles. ChaseK (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hear what you are saying but if notability of this company is based on skepticism, the references must still meet WP:ORGCRIT. These do not. It looks like the company did some well-planned press which gained a little traction about a decade ago and then a few who guest posted on some sites to counter it. if the company was worthy of notice, we would have plenty of in-depth coverage showing notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No the skeptical sources 5-7 don't establish notability, they only contextualize the other coverage. Sources 1-4 were meant to establish notability. For example: 1: Jerome Burne is health journalist independent of the subject, The Independant is generally considered reliable, and the article has substantial coverage. Seems fine for use in non-WP:MEDRS statements. ChaseK (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, this is promotional and unencyclopedic. I won't revert since this is going through discussion, but if the page is kept it would need to go through a discussion per WP:ONUS. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm fine if you remove it - I added it mostly because I thought it was interesting that much of their fringe research is being funded by the U.S. government. To be honest I find WP:VNOT to be very vague so I'm not sure how it applies here. ChaseK (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. We also have to focus on WP:NPOV. If adding it because you find it "interesting that much of their fringe search is being funded by the U.S. government," that is clearly trying to lead readers to a conclusion which we don't do on Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: I would also point out, relevant to the discussion, that there are government contractors that receive billions or tens of billions of dollars per year. A company receiving $4 million over a twenty year period is of no moment. BD2412 T 00:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, given the paucity of the sources; thank you CNMall41. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The institute has been covered far more extensively than Childre, so shouldn't the redirect go that way? Or delete both articles? ChaseK (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect as per above. WP:NCORP fail. Not every pseudoscience org can have a Wikipedia page. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Slight POV slant, would need significant rewriting to be in line with MOS, but this is largely irrelevant due to the questionability of the references and previous AfD verdict.Thanks,NeuropolTalk 13:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've added this to the Paranormal-related deletion discussion list. 5Q5|✉ 10:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete per WP:ATTACK. This page exists primarily to disparage its subject. JSFarman (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzada Ahsan Ashraf[edit]

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

Back in 2018, there was a brief discussion about whether caretaker cabinet level positions automatically confer WP:N. The consensus was that they do not, and one has to pass the GNG to have a bio. Based on that discussion, the subject of this BLP does not fall under WP:POLITICIAN and must meet GNG, which he currently does not. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

A discussion about some new policy regarding these types of articles is welcome to take place outside this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretenders to the throne of Parma[edit]

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

Follow-up to c. 60 "Line of succession to the former X throne" precedents, almost all of which resulted in Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Mexico. NLeeuw (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I ping some participants from previous discussions on the same type of topic? NLeeuw (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice against early submission of a draft to AfC. Owen× ☎ 17:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Santa Rosa local elections[edit]

2025 Santa Rosa local elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Endorsed PROD objected to. Article fails to meet WP:GNG, and is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Local elections tend not to be considered notable enough for standalone articles. Mdann52 (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify, or delete and then unblank the identical redirected draft. It's notable enough for an article, and there are some good examples of how to write and reference this in Category:2022 Philippine local elections, but a search for some decent references to add here turned up very little. WP:TOOSOON, per nomination. In six months or so, it should be possible to develop the draft into a good article. Wikishovel (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't typically have articles on city-level elections, which this appears to be. SportingFlyer T·C 17:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed - but several of those may well need to be deletion nommed as unsourced/GNG fails as well. Mdann52 (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This election doesn't happen for 11 months. How do they know the exact candidates this far ahead of time? The 2022 Santa Rosa local elections was not created until after the final election results. —Maile (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SKCRIT#2c. Article was renominated too soon after the previous AfD. (non-admin closure) GTrang (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yevgeny Slyusarenko[edit]

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

An ordinary Russian journalist. There is no noticeable importance. There is no correspondence with WP:JOURNALIST. In the previous discussion, only the author of the article spoke in favor of leaving it.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I guess the nominator must be warned that it is not a good idea to repeat the AfD nomination without bringing up any new arguments, apparently hoping I will not notice the nomination. Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yevgeny Slyusarenko, closed two weeks ago as keep. Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this journalist notable? HeritageGuardian (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I provided multiple reliable sources according to WP:N. Thank you for your question, a user with 18 edits. Ymblanter (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anti-abortion movements as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 17:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-violent abortion protests[edit]

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

Seems to be a WP:POVFORK of anti-abortion movements/United States anti-abortion movement, which covers these topics. Not to say there's no such thing as "non-violent abortion protests" but that it's not an independent topic. For better or worse, there's a lot of media coverage of anti-abortion violence, but the same coverage doesn't exist that treats non-violent protests as a distinct subject that passes WP:GNG (and at minimum WP:NOPAGE would apply). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Medicine. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Anti-abortion movements. This title could be read to imply that most protests against abortion are violent, with the non-violent ones being rarer. That appears to be a WP:NPOV and WP:V violation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the vast majority of anti-abortion protests are already non-violent in nature. The anti-abortion movements page is therefore mostly covering the topic of non-violent abortion protests already. A page for 'anti-abortion terrorism', by contrast, would be justified for creation if it doesn't exist already, as it is markedly different from most anti-abortion movements and it has a fair amount of media attention. Reesorville (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to anti-abortion movements. Article is already covered, and the POV in this article is slanted throughout with no justification of using a separate article.Thanks,NeuropolTalk 13:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ and SALT, after being deleted six times. Owen× ☎ 17:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KoGaMa[edit]

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

Clearly written as an advertisement with no indication of notability. Almost all sources are self-published. B3251(talk) 14:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A-Plus TV#Drama serials. as a valid ATD. Owen× ☎ 17:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nail Polish (TV serial)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BIG Synergy#Fiction shows. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angrezi Mein Kehte Hain[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Tagged for notability since 2020 DonaldD23 talk to me 13:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by ARY Digital#Drama series. as a valid ATD. Owen× ☎ 17:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baddua[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 13:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Dmitriyev (poet)[edit]

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

Compliance with WP:WRITER has not been demonstrated.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FTG Metro[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources; sources are mostly obituaries. No indication of awards or charted songs. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is clear, borderline WP:SNOW. BD2412 T 03:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adeesh Babu[edit]

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

This article was created in draft and speedy-deleted per WP:G11 on June 8. It was then recreated (somewhat less promotional) and PRODded. The PROD was removed by an IP, who also added some unsourced material. I (improperly because I had no right to reinstate the PROD) reverted the IP because of the unsourced material. Another administrator properly removed the PROD. The article still exists at Draft:Adeesh Babu, which is where I believe it should be until it's cleaned up and notability has been satisfied. Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing suggests this is a notable artist. They have done everyday things like go to school and have an art show. Typical of the sourcing here is "The New Indian Express" source[20] which does not provide significant coverage. It just simply names them as creating with their friends "an online art exhibition which features 13 works of 13 artists" and was hosted on blogspot. They are far from WP:ARTIST standards like "regarded as an important figure" or "known for originating a significant new concept" or "been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Elspea756 (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All I find are the Times of India link and primary sources, including his own website. None of this is notable and the lack of coverage indicates non-notability. The Times of India is also not a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Liz's original assessment of WP:G11 BrigadierG (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Sallis[edit]

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

Borderline promo piece on a businessperson that doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. According to WP:RSPS, we should not accept Forbes contributor pieces nor articles on Medium as evidence of notability, as they are essentially self-published and/or have very little editorial oversight. The other sources are also quite suspect and either look like blogs or are written in a very promotional way, which indicates some sort of conflict of interest. My own searches found nothing better. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:G11. "President of Rapid Credit Boosters. Sallis is a philanthropist, motivational speaker [...]" give me a break. BrigadierG (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per BrigadierG. It's not just a "borderline promo piece" it literally is a promo piece. Even if it wasn't a promo piece he does not seem notable anyway. Procyon117 (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Antoine Sallis meets the notability criteria as demonstrated by several reliable sources.  He was featured in Black Enterprise and Rolling Out, which provide significant coverage of his career and achievements:
 - Black Enterprise: [Antoine Sallis, the Credit Genius, teaches others how to maximize the full power of credit](https://www.blackenterprise.com/antoine-sallis-the-credit-genius-teaches-others-how-to-maximize-the-full-power-of-credit/)
 - Rolling Out: [Antoine Sallis, the Credit Genius, talks about his unique leadership style](https://rollingout.com/2022/04/30/antoine-sallis-the-credit-genius-talks-about-his-unique-leadership-style/ )

Additionally, he is a published author with books that have ISBNs and are listed in reliable databases such as Google Books: 

 - Google Books: [The Great American Credit Secret](https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Great_American_Credit_Secret.html?id=pSH_zwEACAAJ)

These sources clearly establish his notability and warrant the retention of this article.

Please sign your comments so we know who this is. Other than that, the first two links are just interviews that don't show any notability. And having a book in Google Books doesn't guarantee notability. Procyon117 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I've removed some known SEO sinks. The rest is vanity press publications. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing concrete to establish notablility, fails GNG and looks more of promotional as well. Robertjamal12 ~🔔 14:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WOOL (FM)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The best source is an obituary of the founder. Other sources show that it exists but little else. A recent conversion to a redirect was immediatly reversed. Fails WP:GNG.  Velella  Velella Talk   11:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Vermont. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of radio stations in Vermont: Newer radio stations are far less likely to meet the GNG owing to the decreased likelihood of attaining significant coverage, regardless of how much local (rather than national) programming may exist. By 2024 standards, we really don't need much more than an {{R to list entry}} as an alternative to deletion. (The contested redirect was to the list of community radio stations in the United States, but that is limited to stations with Wikipedia articles — to me, that does not make a valid ATD.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, at the risk of bringing up the proverbial "other stuff that exists", I did want to point out that if WOOL is not determined to be sufficiently notable, its LPFM predecessor WOOL-LP would probably also be a GNG fail. (They really should not be separate articles in any event, and that they are is if anything a remnant of the very same too-loose pre-2021 RfC inclusion standards that led to WOOL seemingly being deemed an appropriate article subject at all.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was already considering merging those two articles but had not been able to handle it due to issues on my end. I've dealt with the reverse (full-service FM license switched to LPFM, in both cases an upgrade from Class D) and written them as one article (KSWC-LP, KSWH-LP). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Owing to the recent rewrite, merger, and expansion, I'm pivoting to keep. If nothing else, all this is a reminder that "far less likely" does not mean "zero chance"! WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am working on collecting resources for the entire WOOL run (LP + FM). There is a steady trickle of articles on this station in newspapers in Brattleboro and Rutland—better coverage than most LPFMs. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • WOOL-LP has been redirected here, and I have completed an expansion of the prose. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There appears to be sourcing out there. Thriley (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sammi Brie added sources to the article, so I guess that's good.
Also, WOOL-LP has been merged/directed to the WOOL-FM (Full Power) article. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 04:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Imran Garda without prejudice against selectively merging sourced content that fits with the target page. Owen× ☎ 17:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The InnerView[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:GNG, or WP:NTV (which is an essay, not a policy). I've hunted around for a few days now for some independent, secondary sources about this show, assuming that a show on the state public broadcasting network TRT World with such wide geographical coverage would have some decent reviews etc in reliable sources, but all I can find is more or less what's here: passing mentions of the show, in articles about the subjects of the interview. 73 of the 84 sources cited so far are from the show's own YouTube channel. Its chief claim to notability is the many notable people who have been interviewed on the show, but on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. Article creator is a single-purpose account, and no response yet at their user talk page about potential conflict of interest. Wikishovel (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Imran Garda. article is not notable (per WP:GNG), has no WP:SIGCOV, and cites some rather strange/primary sources. Noelle!!! (summon a demon or read smth) 16:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the article would be better off as a section in Imran Garda. Noelle!!! (summon a demon or read smth) 16:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page fulfils all the necessary criteria. Clips from the show have been published by such reputable organisations as CNN, Middle East Eye,[Middle East Monitor and Earth Speed, among others. The page is comprised solely of factual information. The show reaches approximately 260 million homes worldwide through broadcast and thousands more through social media. In my opinion, the Wikipedia page for The InnerView is justified in its existence.The program has hosted a number of notable individuals whose perspectives have significantly influenced the way in which we perceive the world. (Elina Ergunes) 15:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elina Ergunes (talk • contribs) — Elina Ergunes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. There was no support for an outright deletion. Therefore, a merger would be an alternative to Keep, not an ATD. There was rough consensus that not all three articles - Fantastic Beasts, List of Fantastic Beasts cast members and this one - should exist independently, but no consensus as to which should be merged into what. Such controversial mergers are best handled editorially on the repsective articles' Talk pages. Owen× ☎ 14:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fantastic Beasts characters[edit]

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

There are two big issues: Firstly, there's no citations outside of the one character that already has his own page, Newt Scamander. Secondly, this is for a three-film series - so not really a huge body of work - and, outside of the main four or five characters, there's one or two sentences for each person. Worse, the articles on the films have cast lists with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters, so it's redundant as well (The main characters' longer bits just being the plot summaries of the films). Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 23:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:CSC #2, no argument for deletion made that cannot be remedied by editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it rises to the level of notability where it can ever be sourced. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic of "List of X characters" is X, and we're agreed that Fantastic Beasts itself is notable, so questioning the notability of "X characters" as a topic is a red herring. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These articles a little weird if we are trying to go by consistency. List of Harry Potter characters exists, but that is for characters who appeared in any of the books, which a lot of these do not and are not mentioned in that article. There is also List of Fantastic Beasts cast members which compliments List of Harry Potter cast members (a featured list.) Maybe it might be beneficial to merge the two Fantastic Beasts articles since the cast members one is well sourced, while this one is not. Aspects (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not objecting to Fantastic Beasts having multiple articles, but the number of secondary articles on it seems vastly out of line with the material. Fantastic Beasts (film series) and the three film articles are sensible enough, Newt Scamander seems to have enough independant coverage - and crossover content between various things - that it's justified, but when you get to a list of the characters, and a cast list as a table without any context, it feels both redundant and weird. It feels like the cast list should be at the end of the article on the series, and the character list... well... it's really hard to see why that exists at all if this article the most we can come up with, and I don't think anything in it isn't in the cast sections of the articles for each film; indeed, I think those may be doing a slightly better job.
Harry Potter isn't a good guide to what should exist here, as that was a much, much bigger phenomenon than its spinoff, and, as a book series, had both a lot more characters than could plausibly fit in a plot summary and a lot more development and recurrence of minor characters (and Rowling talked a lot more about the development of those characters in interviews). Films just don't have the depth of books, and, if there's material about secondary characters that got left out of the films, as far as I'm aware, it's not reported on.
And, of course, Harry Potter in particular had a lot more secondary sources that went into detail about every character; Fantastic Beasts doesn't have anything like that depth of coverage. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel there has to be a merge target as an WP:ATD for this. The one suggested above seems less intuitive than if the main article had a characters section. Perhaps each individual film should have a characters section? Conyo14 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They already do, is the thing, with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters. And it covers pretty much all the information on this page except for the main cast, who are redundant to the plot summary. If I've missed that one doesn't appear, by all means copy it over. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 13:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further pop culture sources, if somewhat focussed on a specific film of the series would be [23], [24], and with a fun bit of analysis, [25]. So again, that there is not enough sourcing to constitute an article does not at all seem to be the case. Daranios (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it feels redundant to the film articles, and there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article, but, well, sure. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article: On the one hand I think that's a valid concern, seeing that some articles stay tagged and unimproved for long periods of time. But on the other hand I think that is the basic premise of Wikipedia, and the project is immensly successful! So I prefer to err on the side of hope in accordance with WP:There is no deadline and especially WP:Work in progress. Daranios (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ay, but I think when the article's a spinoff that has redundant information to other articles at present, it's perhaps more of a question. As it stands, it's just the character lists already in the three films, but as an unreferenced, alphabetised list. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 10:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Please do not turn List of Fantastic Beasts cast members into a Redirect as that article is being discussed as a possible Merge target article which can't occur if the page is a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but do note the entirety of List of Fantastic Beasts cast members is merged to Fantastic Beasts now, so unless we do combine, should redirect. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 18:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. "characters" does feel better. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the merge would result in "characters" being the final page. Malinaccier (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per WP:ATD. The article is poorly sourced, but a clean-up and merge offers a way to arrive at a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The argument for deletion only lists surmountable problems. In my opinion, it is the cast member list that should be merged here, not vice-versa. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We can't close this discussion as a reverse merge as the other article has not been tagged as being part of this AFD discussion and most participants have just commented about the article nominated, not a separate article. That would have to be a separate, new Merge discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on merge target Cast and characters are different topics. Character lists for fictional franchise exist across many more topics than do those for lists of cast members, since many representations (books, manga, etc.) have no cast members and others (animation) have only voice cast. Merging this into the cast members article doesn't make sense. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus to keep the content. No prejudice against merging, if someone want to pursue that avenue and do the work. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India-Latin America relations[edit]

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

Articles on diplomatic relations are supposed to be country specific as long as they concern modern period. This article's title is too broad, inaccurate and whatever is added here can be already found on other articles.Ratnahastin (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't share that understanding of what counts as a legitimate article at all; there are many articles concerning country-to-region relations, such as Africa–India relations, Sino-Latin America relations, etc. Also, I would like to ask which other articles most of the information in this article can be found at. GreekApple123 (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Africa–India relations is based on historical relations while Sino-Latin America relations shall also require deletion.Ratnahastin (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or Merge into other Indian articles about relations with Latin America
48JCL (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article is well sourced and covers India's relations with Latin America. With India's growing economy, this a topic which has been getting covered these past years. Dash9Z (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A brief look at the references in the article was enough to convince me that India–Latin America relations are a notable topic covered significantly by reliable sources. Those are reputable, scholarly sources, like The Diplomat and several journal articles, discussing this subject at length. Toadspike [Talk] 23:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Foreign relations of India, where it makes more sense for now. Content could always be split if it becomes more comprehensive. Dan the Animator 00:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per points made by other users advocating for keep. Will be open to work on it more post afd closure
  • Keep Article should be kept and rather expanded. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 02:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎ delete. The deciding issue here is the lack of in-depth and independent sourcing. For commercial companies, the standards here are quite stringent. If press releases and the like are accepted as sufficient sourcing, ut is hard to avoid Wikipedia becoming an indirect marketing tool. The article contains several sources, not all of them about the company. Hkkingg listed a number of sources that cover the company in some depth, but the analysis by HighKing on the source's independence and reliability is convincing here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tushy (company)[edit]

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

So as I mentioned on my AfD for their CEO, here I am. There were... quite the volume of WP:PRODUCTREV to get through, but nothing with significant coverage of the company, and barely anything on any specific product. Though this was not the primary focus, I do not believe any individual product of theirs is notable either, even ignoring questions of ORGIND or RS. The coverage of their events would seem to be excluded on WP:SPIP. I don't see any plausible way to meet WP:NCORP here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I was talking to a sock
  • Kinda obvious that this should be kept. Freedun (yippity yap) 00:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing the "obvious", sorry Freedun, in fact, if the 5 best sources are a data feed with no sign of editorial processes, People, which is routine coverage of self-promotional activity, a product review that wouldn't count as sigificant coverage for the product, much less the company even if we considered it ORGIND, an ad, a random blog, and WP:TECHCRUNCH, that would be a strong argument for deletion. Honestly, re Hkkingg: You've been here a year, you really ought to know better by now? And Oaktree b, really? I've already gone over People, but are you seriously going to say that the article from The Cut meets even a single one of the other criteria? We do remeber those exist right? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok i see sorry. I'm not too familiar with what counts as a really great source (in contrast to my past work at fandom). i think you need 3 good ones so here: [26] [27] [28] these aren't ads or a random blog. Freedun (yippity yap) 21:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just about reliability. You need sources that address the subject directly and in-detail, and to not be trivial coverage à la the (non-exhaustive) list at WP:ORGTRIV, and said coverage needs to be secondary analysis. I don't see "directly and in-detail" from your three there, and it's not possible to write an article from a bunch of passing mentions, no matter how long that list of mentions is. Not without improper synthesis. An example in the article currently: the entire § Coronavirus section is pretty inappropriate. There is no way for quantity to make up for that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    they are in-detail and not trivial, and those 3 are just scratching the service. i don't see how those are "passing mentions" either, there is more than enough for a wikipedia article, however the article about the CEO is insufficient so I agree with you there. Freedun (yippity yap) 06:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe the Vox article addresses Tushy directly and in-detail, can you please identify some of the sentences that actually discuss the company? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Tushy" is mentioned 14 times in the article, i don't want to copy and paste it all in here. but here's a good sentence "The main selling point of the Tushy is that it allows you to use less toilet paper; the company essentially says that the Tushy minimizes the environmental impact of using toilet paper since it only requires, on average, one pint of water to clean your bum." Freedun (yippity yap) 20:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The parts of an article where a reporter repeats what the company says are not WP:ORGIND (or secondary either for that matter). We are trying to meet all four criteria here right? Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of those sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. This is written by a bot that scrapes "billions of anonymised purchased to answer real-time questions on consumer behaviour", no deffo not a reliable source/article. It also only mentions the company once, in-passing, and has zero in-depth information about the company - fails WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH. This in People is based entirely on a company announcement and their own published words, this is not "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND. This is a review of a bidet, zero "Independent Content" about the *company*, fails CORPDEPTH. This in Digital Trends is based entirely on an announcement - it is a regurgitated ad - and has no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH. This from Bidet Genius is first of all written by a company that sells Bidets, so not exactly a reliable source and also fails ORGIND as they're not independent. Happens to also not include in-depth information about the company, also failing CORPDEPTH. Finally this from TechCrunch continues the long tradition of this publication acting as an out-sourced marketing department for companies, article fails ORGIND because it is simply a puff profile regurgitating company messaging. HighKing++ 20:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of the available sources really meet NCORP criteria, as we cannot find independent, in-depth, non-trivial coverage. --176.210.111.198 (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — 176.210.111.198 (talk) has only contributed to this XFD page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC) not sure if you're someone who forgot to sign in or...[reply]
  • Comment they also want to purchase naming rights to a sports stadium in Buffalo [29] and [30]. These are sources that are about the company, not strictly about routine business funding and other normal company goings-on. Oaktree b (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it not routine coverage, and WP:SPIP besides? What "critical analysis of the event" is there? A few puns? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    in addition, there are a ton of "profiles". see the nytimes Freedun (yippity yap) 20:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, there is enough for an article about the founder. i think I'm going to start that some time but business people are kinda boring Freedun (yippity yap) 20:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Now blocked as a UPE sock by Ponyo. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection to an article on Miki Agrawal, a quick glance indicates BASIC seems plausible, but for a company article the sources we need to write an article about a company need to be about the company. That means there needs to be independent content, published in independent RS, that is detailed and secondary enough to actually write an article from those sources. A profile on the founder doesn't cut it, even if the company is mentioned. (No matter how many times those mentions happen. Quantity is not a substitute.) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the sources in the article provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, mainly regurgitated company announcements and other PR-related content. If anyone thinks there are references that meet NCORP, post a link and indicate which paragraph/page/whatever contains the Independent in-depth Content. HighKing++ 19:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cite Highlighter is not enough for corporations and organizations; we have to look at the articles and examine whether there is significant coverage from independent. I've read through sources 1 and 34, which Oaktree b mentioned above, and it's a bit of a stretch. The first one principally seems about the CEO's marketing stunt, but that isn't really coverage of the company. And the second is a report that a bidet company has made a bid for the Bills stadium, which is a form of a routine business announcement. I've also read the other sources mentioned by Hkkingg, and I find the analysis by HighKing to be convincing. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elmslie typology[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the typology in reliable sources. I found several mentions, but they were brief. toweli (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The typology is potentially important and is often referred to but full publication and critical discussion are hard to find. In fact, this article is one of the fullest detailed explanations easily available, yet is lacking in citations back to RS original publication or critical coverage. Would suggest we need an article on this typology but serious revision is in order to tackle the source issues. Monstrelet (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A necessary counterpart to the Oakshott system for double-edged blades. I agree that better sourcing is necessary, but I see no need to trim back to only the sourced parts. Most low-rated articles lack full sourcing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:07, 2 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! 07:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've done some digging and it seems the entire system can be traced to this website and its owner, James G. Elmslie [31]. The site is no longer live but has been thoroughly archived at IA. One would expect this system to be listed under "Research" [32], but it isn't. As far as I can tell, it was made popular by this YouTube video, whose creator also uploaded diagrams to DeviantArt [33]. The YouTube video makes claims of increasing acceptance by the academic/museum community, so I searched Google Scholar and found several results [34]. Examples include [35][36][37][38] (note that the links 6 and 7 are parts 2 and 3 of one work). These cite the typology itself to two different versions of a book titled "The Sword: Form and thought", one from 2015 with first editor Grotkamp-Schepers and one from 2019 with first editor Deutscher. Links: [39][40]. I am working on verifying this book citation, but based on what I've found so far, this typology is indeed published in academic literature and is notable. Toadspike [Talk] 10:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now checked the 2019 version of the book "The Sword: Form and Thought". Elmslie's work is indeed referenced on pages 169, 173, and 175, cited to "pers. comm.", which a quick search tells me means "Personal Communications" (with the author of the papers in question). I would argue that this shows Elmslie is a subject-matter expert as well, and sources he publishes himself (SPS) can be considered scholarly and reliable. Toadspike [Talk] 11:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, there's no significant coverage, just mentions, and yet you're advocating for a keep? The responses so far have been strange, if it were really that significant there wouldn't be any issues finding a lot of discussion of the typology. toweli (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning brief Merge to Classification of swords#Modern systems (section currently non-existent, presumably more than just Elmslie and Oakeshott should be listed): I have added the MA project in as a delsort since there's likely to be an relevant overlap of interest/expertise with HEMA practitioners. It exists, and it's useful to have it bluelinked from articles where it's mentioned (currently Falchion and Messer (sword), if it should so remain). It also has no significant independent coverage, and extremely limited uptake. In cases like this, the details available externally (archived) are there for those who want to dig into them. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Trueblood[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCIENTIST. His singular discovery is not a notable event, just noteworthy (in the list where it appears). There's just not enough in unrelated third-party reliable sources about him to make an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 04:54, 2 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! 07:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources have been provided. The nomination needed explanation and specificity. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

360 Communities[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 2 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! 07:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on sources posted by Manyyassin. They're on the edge of being WP:ROTM coverage of funding announcements, but I think there's enough coverage of the downstream importance of the organization to hit GNG. BrigadierG (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandhan Mutual Fund[edit]

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

Renominating the article because it has been restored to its original state (after minimal participation in the previous AfD) and has not been modified since the date of its refund (12 May 2024). This circumstance provides ample reason to once again initiate the deletion of the article, based on the same rationale presented during the initial deletion discussion. - "Trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. Citations are collections of paid news which are highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The primary issue arises from the editor's attempt to pass off two financial products (exchange traded funds), namely BANDHAN S&P BSE SENSEX ETF (BSE:540154) and BANDHAN NIFTY 50 ETF (NSE:IDFNIFTYYET), as company's own stock market listings, which they are not, thereby failing to adhere to WP:LISTED. A comparable effort was observed in the AFD discussion of Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance, wherein the company tried to be part of NIFTY 50 without proper validation. In a nutshell, the company falls short when it comes to meeting WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND." TCBT1CSI (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion (again)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It wouldn't be surprising if this page ends in soft deletion again, and someone would request a WP:REFUND. It's fine if no one joins in a deletion discussion, but it's very surprising that the creator who asked for the refund hasn't made any updates to this refunded page and hasn't participated in this discussion or previous ones. As a nominator, I am making a request to continue this deletion discussion for another round for one last time. If the page meets WP:ORGCRIT, WP:SIRS and WP:HEY, then I'll withdraw the nomination. TCBT1CSI (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Here's your quorum. Doesn't meet NCORP, especially the bits about "reliable sources" and "No inherited notability" – just because they were bought and sold by StanChart once doesn't make them notable, and the sources seem like glorified press/data releases. Toadspike [Talk] 00:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. an AFD discussion can't close as Soft Deletion twice. And since there has already been an AFD Soft Deletion is not an option at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess investment firms are just boring as hell and no one wants to vote on them. Can't say I blame them. I'm not seeing anything other than transactional and routine announcements about performance and press releases confirming existence. BrigadierG (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretenders to the throne of Mexico[edit]

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

Follow-up to c. 60 "Line of succession to the former X throne" precedents, almost all of which resulted in Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Parma. NLeeuw (talk) 12:56, 2 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! 07:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I ping some participants from previous discussions on the same type of topic? NLeeuw (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dracula Hakushaku[edit]

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

It exists but isn't notable enough for its own article, and I can't find a good WP:ATD. Has been unreferenced and tagged for notability for a long time. Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was unable to find any coverage on Archive.org, even in Japanese magazine sources. Oh! X and MicomBASIC issues both came up in my search, but the game wasn't in the reviews in the table of contents for the issues that came up, and appears to just have been listed in lists of games for sale in ads in the magazines. Fails GNG. Waxworker (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central 23[edit]

Central 23 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet GNG or NORG. Sources are all interviews, lists of products, or do not mention Central 23. No RS found during BEFORE search. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding any significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Some of the sources in the article don't even mention the company and others barely mention it. — Iadmc♫talk  05:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is another one where on its face it appears to be notable. However, applying WP:SIRS shows that WP:ORGCRIT is not met. Examples include this and this which are in-depth, but the information is supplied by the founders so there is no real independence of the topic. The main reference that is a claim for notability is the same as the others. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by Star Maa#Drama series. Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malli Nindu Jabili[edit]

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

Only a single source is TOI which only verifies an actor's role in the series. A WP:BEFORE found references to verify it exists, but no significant coverage to establish notability. CNMall41 (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, withdrawn, WP:HEY applies (non-admin closure)‎. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colchester Crutched Friary[edit]

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

I found no coverage and the one sentence article is unreferenced. SL93 (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WFEM-LP[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:48, 2 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! 03:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bass 305[edit]

Bass 305 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. Fails WP:BAND. SL93 (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did do WP:BEFORE. I already explained the nomination. Just read WP:BAND. I refuse to regurgitate the guideline. SL93 (talk) 03:57, 2 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! 04:48, 2 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! 03:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WVTN-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:58, 2 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! 03:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asarva–Udaipur City Intercity[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG in any way, [41] which the article cites is just a list of train times. Sohom (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gidonb, I did search for sources, the only ones I found was [42] which is doesn't actually mention the Intercity train at all, which is why it isn't mentioned in my nom statement. Sohom (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the additional research. Could we perhaps change to the railroad rather than a service on it? gidonb (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, I found no sourcing on this unnamed train routing (the "name" is literally [TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] Intercity). As an aside, I don't get how in general Wikipedia decided to have articles on nearly all train routings in India, it's like trying to make an article on every generic intercity rail service in Europe (ex. trying to make an article based off this new UK service), which we don't do. Jumpytoo Talk 03:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Riva[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Marked for COI and primary sourcing issues over 10 years ago, this article's sourcing still consists of 1) coverage about other topics that merely mention the subject, and 2) primary sources. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 2 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! 03:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 01:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gauntlett Eldemire III[edit]

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

This person is far from notable. There are no articles about him from any source other than his own school's website. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mercer University#Student life. Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMUB-LD[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing. Merge with Mercer University#Student life. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, but I wouldn’t be opposed to a merger. These sources seem to be directly about WMUB-LD, and not just “Look guys! [Network] signed deals with a list of stations that include WMUB!” more “Hey look, WMUB-LD and [Network] have signed a deal.” Though its lack is enough for me to say it’s weak at best. Danubeball (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Blum[edit]

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

Non-notable darts player per WP:SPORTCRIT. I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_June_9&oldid=1229561308"