Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 14 March 16 >

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. Those editors interested in a Merge can start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mané pelado[edit]

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

Not notable, WP:BEFORE check lists only recipes and trivial mentions. – Hilst [talk] 14:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Hi Hilst, my apologies but I don't agree with your assessment that this article is not notable. Also, I'm not sure how WP:BEFORE applies here. While some of the sources that I've used for this article do contain recipes, they all also speak more broadly about mané pelado. Bom gourmet is a Brazilian food news organization (this source originally linked to Gazeta do povo but it looks like they were incorporated into Bom gourmet), Cybercook is a subsidiary of the French Carrefour, Globo is the most popular news organization in Brazil, and Territorios Gastronomicos is a Brazilian food channel. I can provide translations of any of the material contained in these sources if need be. BaduFerreira (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cassava cake – No notability in Brazilian gastronomy, just a regional name for cassava cake, present throughout the regions. Svartner (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment – Do my sources not establish notability? They all come from reliable sources. Here's another source that mentions mané pelado (link), but save for the Bom Gourmet source (that mentions mané pelado in addition to other desserts), all the sources currently used in the article are reliable independent secondary sources that give significant coverage of mané pelado. Additionally, mané pelado is different from the Brazilian cassava cake (bolo de mandioca) that is found around Brazil because mané pelado uses cheese and bolo de mandioca does not. It's also a regional staple to the Brazilian state of Goiás and the broader Center-West, whereas bolo de mandioca isn't associated with a certain region. It's like the difference between chocolate cake and black forest cake. Fundamentally, they're both chocolate cake but black forest cake is notable for being from Germany and includes cherries. Furthermore, merging to Cassava cake would be inappropriate as no Brazilian bolo de mandioca uses custard or coconut milk in their recipes. It looks like the only similarity between Mané pelado and Cassava cake is that they both use yuca, which I believe supports Mané pelado having its own stand-alone article. BaduFerreira (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The G1 source in the article is fine, but the rest of what I can find are trivial mentions in travel guides (this restaurant has the best mane pelado) or recipes. I don't see SIGCOV Oaktree b (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A very traditional cake in the state of Goiás, as confirmed by the sources. It is mentioned is multiple scholar articles related to the cuisine of Goiás. Skyshiftertalk 15:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I vote to merge mainly because it seems this article relies heavily on WP:BLOGS like Cybercook, which usually don't qualify as a reliable source. If any of the scholarly sources mentioned might be better used, there would be a stronger argument to keep the page. GuardianH (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment I've removed the Cybercook source and added three more sources which I believe give WP:SIGCOV. Please feel free to suggest further improvements. BaduFerreira (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could those editor advocating a Merge provide a link to the target article they are proposing? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Cassava cake. "Mané pelado" is just a variation of the recipe, present in all regions of Brazil and not just in Goiás. Svartner (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you show me a source that shows that the Brazilian mané pelado is a variation of the Filipino cassava cake? Additionally, if the original issue with the mané pelado article was that it used sources that contained recipes, I'd say that the cassava cake article needs serious adjustments to remove references that are currently used like 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. BaduFerreira (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a variation of the Filipino recipe, but it is a variation of cassava cake. Information on Brazilian variations, such as "Mané pelado", can and should be added to the scope of the main article. Svartner (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The cassava cake article is about the Filipino dessert, not cakes that contain cassava in general. There is no main article for cakes that contain cassava in general and that's what the Cassava cake (disambiguation) page is for. It makes no sense to include information about a Brazilian dessert in an article about a Filipino dessert that's only relation is that its primary ingredient is also cassava/yuca. Mané pelado is the only type of bolo de mandioca (translated as cassava cake) that I've found reliable sources for, which is why it exists as an independent article. BaduFerreira (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there is disagreement over whether or not a Merge to a similar article is a valid option or whether this has notability as a standalone article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Just a look in Google Books and you can see how common it is. The South American community know all about it. It would be as common to South American people as Po'e would be Society Islanders, Cook Island people etc. Karl Twist (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries#Results. The Keep !votes were divided between WP:OSE-type arguments and VAGUEWAVE in the general direction of GNG or "media coverage", without pointing to any actual SIGCOV. Among those who actually analyzed sources here, I see a clear consensus to redirect the page. Two redirect targets have been proposed here, with 2024_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries#Results receiving far more support than the other. And as a final note, baseless accusations of "corruption" among established editors are most likely to WP:BACKFIRE if pursued to their conclusion. Owen× ☎ 19:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Oklahoma Libertarian presidential primary[edit]

2024 Oklahoma Libertarian presidential primary (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 primary in which less than 1000 people participated in, not notable outside 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries. AusLondonder (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean sources not currently at the article? Because the article is clearly lacking in reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We certainly shouldn't be in the business of gatekeeping political results for smaller parties and this is a proper primary election. Nate • (chatter) 14:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT are a form of gatekeeping, but they are our policies. If you think the policies should change to give inherent notability to all political party primary elections, including minor parties, that's fine. But for now, that's not the case. AusLondonder (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•Keep It has significant enough media coverage Expoe34 (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that media coverage? It's not at the article.... AusLondonder (talk) 09:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect non-notable local election with fewer than 1,000 voters with no articles which cover only this election, which can also be adequately summarised as an ATD on the results page. SportingFlyer T·C 12:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there are a number of keep !votes here, we need to look at the sources. KOKH-TV has one sentence about the winner. Oklahoma Voice has two sentences about the first time this was a primary. The USA Today article has two sentences on the novelty factor. Nondoc.com has one sentence, who the winner was. The Oklahoman article has one sentence on the fact the candidates appeared at a college together. The Tulsa paper I cannot access. The other two sources are election results and a primary link to the party. There is clearly not enough information here to qualify this for its own page under the WP:GNG as none of the coverage was significant, but enough information to include on the website, hence the redirect is the only plausible outcome. There are several WP:OSE arguments above about major party primaries in the state as well - perhaps we should have a discussion to see if all presidential primaries in a state for the two major US parties qualify for their own article or if they should be redirected as well? SportingFlyer T·C 21:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This primary received coverage along with the two 'major' parties to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not beyond mentioning it was going on. It's not significant. SportingFlyer T·C 20:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: other primaries, such as the 2024 American Samoa Republican presidential caucuses have less than 1000 people, and they exist. Had media coverage along with the 2 “major” parties. And you and Reppop deleting Libertarian Primary Articles is just corrupt. Libertarians are people too. LordBirdWord (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppeteer)[reply]
Not going to vote, but I will comment because of the "corruption" apparently going on. It's not a "deletion of existence" for these people, its a lack of proper sourcing for these specific pages (a couple of mentions is not significant media coverage). It's not like were trying to delete the actual full primary page with all of the results, its just that for these pages, it doesn't add anything for it to warrant its own, separate article. reppoptalk 23:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The primary received a good amount of coverage and is the first Libertarian Primary in the state's history. I think it is a fine entry to remain in the encyclopedia. Samoht27 (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keep and Redirection. I hope future comments can focus less on whether or not Wikipedia "should" have this article and more on whether there is adquate sourcing to estabish notability for this primary (just as we do with every article that gets nominated for deletion).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. after article improvements were made. Liz Read! Talk! 20:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Dunlop (chess player)[edit]

John Dunlop (chess player) (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)

Cannot find any sources to support this bio's notability, apart from a mention in a personal blog regarding NZ Championship history and a page of New Zealand Chess federation] which is basically a print of New Zealand Chess Championship. Konstantina07 (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Nothing found in books for this individual, Gnewspapers, even in Trove from the Library of Australia [1]. Delete for lack of sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I closed this discussion as Delete but was asked to restore and relist this AFD discussion. Please allow more comments on this AFD before closing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following expansion. Extensive coverage in contemporary New Zealand newspapers; meets WP:GNG. Paora (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:HEY but with the caveat that contemporary newspaper accounts will be primary sources, not counting towards notability. However, they do verify that he won the national senior championships on multiple occasions and the guideline at WP:NCHESS would suggest this confers likely notability, and this is also in line with the different but not unrelated notability criteria at WP:NATHLETE. On that basis it is not unreasonable that secondary sources will exist. Some of the sources now in the article are secondary but may have other issues, but all in all I believe this crosses the line. With thanks to the efforts of Paora. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it would be great if some editors who commented earlier evaluated the expansion of the article since it was nominated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Oaktree b used a very limited search to conclude that there was nothing in Trove. I did an alternate search of Trove and got numerous hits for this person, which is significant, given that Trove is a repository of Australian newspapers and Dunlop was playing mostly in New Zealand. Paora (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst reaffirming my keep !vote, are there any sources other than newspaper accounts? Mentions in a book for instance? These should put the matter beyond doubt. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll look at your results. I only found out about Trove when helping with research for the National Library of Ireland on flickr of all places. Trove is quite the repository, covering items from every corner of the world it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, a suggestion submitted without any trace of bias from this confessed chess aficionado, since truth be my most beloved friend. Dunlop clearly meets WP:NCHESS criterion #3 by having won a national chess championship, New Zealand's, and, moreover, not once but six times. All we need are sources testifying to that effect and we have one here at Chess Café, and another here at the National Library archive. He was never a grandmaster and Jeremy Gaige's invaluable Chess Personalia only lists chess titles and not tournament wins or championships but the above brace of sources suffice. -The Gnome (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the wonderful rescue work performed by Paora. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

StudioSpace[edit]

StudioSpace (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)

Coverage is routine and lacking significant independent reporting (mostly interviews). It does not meet WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just trying to understand notability a bit more. Could I ask, would this be an example of independent reporting? https://www.adnews.com.au/news/online-marketplace-studiospace-arrives-in-australia
AdNews is published by Yaffa Media, one of Australia's largest independent media companies.
The article above does mention demonstrable effects on the economic landscape of agencies as a result of beta testing across the UK and Australia. AUJTwikieditor (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it isn't too bad, but it is somewhat WP:ROUTINE. adnews is also a trade publication i believe. She was afairy 13:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coverage is generally not WP:ORGIND of StudioSpace, coming in the form of interviews and reprints of press releases. Regarding the AdNews source, given its promotional content, and comparing to [2], it's almost certainly a reprint of a press release. ~ A412 talk! 23:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Technology, Internet, United Kingdom, England, Australia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: i accepted this because i thought it would have a 50%+ chance at AfD, but i personally thought it was very borderline and full of routine coverage. the sourcing is not that bad though with some relevant sources, but the interviews and press release content make it not just yet ready. She was afairy 13:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Fails notability guidelines, given the routine coverage aas well as sources that are not independent. Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 20:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per Shewasafairy. Sal2100 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 AT&T#2024 outage. There is consensus against this remaining as a standalone, but there is not consensus whether to simply redirect or merge. Therefore the history is preserved if folks think there's merit to existing section Star Mississippi 16:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 AT&T outage[edit]

2024 AT&T outage (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 outage. Did not turn out to be a cyberattack. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 23. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Computing, and United States of America. Shaws username . talk . 23:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep large enough event that has received international attention and raising concerns about the infrastructure around American cellular networks. PaulRKil (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems similar to the Rogers outage in Canada a while ago. Which was also due to a hardware upgrade... This seems well sourced. Also received international attention [3], indicating notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. News coverage on its own does not confer notability. This is a detail of History of AT&T, not its own historical event. If several sources come out in the following years recapping the sequence of events or studying its effects (not just adding new developments), then the subject will be notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An example of an outage due to a system upgrade, a relatively common occurrence. Very little, if any, coverage in international media. AusLondonder (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doubling down on example of a regular outage. While sketchy that there were no details on this event we can only assume why. Soggycheese (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. DrowssapSMM 19:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's the assumed principle that an outage of significance would have lasted longer than a few hours. Plus the outage was not due to a cyberattack, therefore the WP:SIGCOV is mainly WP:ROUTINE mentions. Conyo14 (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Massive outage that impacted all 50 states. Incidentally, the 71,000 figure are just the people who reported the outage online. This outage impacted millions. Strong keep, as a notable, and preventable, event.Juneau Mike (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a notable event that deserves its own page. More people lose power and other utilities on a regular basis than this one off outage. Xxavyer (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It seems notable on a facial examination- we talk about cell phone blackouts it other regions, albeit normally in the context of elections and the dates on this match to no primary dates. In a another point, it seems this page has the publics attention more than most newly created pages. https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=2024_AT%26T_outage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.80.250 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOTNEWS. Fram (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and come back in a couple of months to see whether this event has a WP:LASTING impact, as measured by persistent coverage. Too soon to decide at this point. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, this discussion seems to consist of whether or not the participants think this event is important. Could there be examination on whether the sources demonstrate notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Run of the mill outage. Clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. TH1980 (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs to be kept It was a major event. ChristianP007 (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Needs to be kept. We are currently in another outage and with no news on this happening again makes me suspicious of a cyber attack (considering last time it was a "unplanned" update((also no news coverage)). Soggycheese (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we are still getting editors' opinion of this event (not important) instead of evaluation of the sources and whether or not THEY establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into a list of newsworthy (but not independently notable) outages. BD2412 T 00:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a target article in mind? Conyo14 (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but if we don't have such a list, then we should certainly create one. BD2412 T 01:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with AT&T --Devokewater 15:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect: There is a list at Internet outage, but the scale of most are currently so outsized compared with this one that it probably doesn't belong there - the 2022 Rogers Communications outage, with >12mil affected for 5+ days was an order of magnitude greater than this one on current figures, for instance, where "millions" (>1.7) were affected for 11 hours. Given that there are now investigations opened by the FCC and the NY AG, and that there's some coverage weeks after the outage, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and WP:NOTNEWS arguments don't quite apply. I've created a section at AT&T#Criticism and controversies using the para at History of AT&T, so it's definitely not a Delete, and am landing on a Merge/Redirect rather than a wait-and-see Weak Keep because there's limited depth of coverage (a lot of articles but covering much the same ground), and I expect that the FCC and NY AG investigations won't expand much (perhaps some fines), and hence if this were kept and returned to AFD once reporting is done then a Merge/Redirect outcome would be even clearer. If WP:LASTING does turn out to really be met, then it can be restored to article then. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~
  • Merge to the section at AT&T - a fair amount of the information already seems to be there so a standalone article now adds fairly little for readers. Gazamp (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is now swinging towards a Merge, I think with AT&T#2024 outage. How does this strike editors who participated here earlier?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – The notability argument does not apply, as the event made news even outside the United States. Svartner (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Reasonable number of reliable sources establishes notability, might worth an expansion. Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 21:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite being affected myself, I believe the article violates NOTNEWS since it was 1. relatively small in its impact (less than even 100,000), 2. Pretty localized within only a few big cities, so while nationwide, was not random and far reaching like one would expect, 3. Was fixed within hours, and 4. There has been no significant media coverage of the event since. For these reasons, I believe the article should be deleted for its news-like coverage. Cheers! Johnson524 18:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to AT&T#2024 outage. There is already a paragraph there about this incident that covers it sufficiently and whatever little new information worth mentioning can be added there. It had no long-term lasting impacts as almost a month later, almost everyone has forgotten about it. 2603:7000:26F0:74B0:B111:E5E5:6E07:FFB6 (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yūko Daike[edit]

Yūko Daike (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)

sourcing is very minor (mention in news site, a book, and a newspaper), and the roles in movies aren't meeting notability. She was afairy 21:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. She seems notable to me and the references seem buoyant. Mevoelo (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very colorful, Mevoelo. But which of the references do you think establish GNG? "Seems notable" isn't very descriptive of what factors verify this point-of-view. Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I performed a search on the subject and discovered significant coverage across various channels and media outlets. Regardless, I am of the opinion that the page can be worked on to further establish notability by providing more references. Mevoelo (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to my first reply, my research shows me that she has featured in several recent movies as a part of the top cast; which unfortunately wasn’t reflected in the page. I also think the nominator’s comment on her ‘roles’ been minor does not apply, because she has featured in several movies as a major cast as well. Some of the most notable movie stars may have at one point acted a minor role. I will do well to update the page with more recent information as regards her filmography and perhaps, add more reputable references. Cheers! Mevoelo (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few citations and updated the filmography section. She was a major character in Ju On. Zitaochi, Kill Devil, Kikijuro, Fireworks among others. Mevoelo (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I don't think the nominator described her roles as minor, only the sourcing. But maybe you refer to the 2nd part of the rationale ('the roles in movies aren't meeting notability"). Anyway, allow me to insist that I absolutely agree with you, and do indeed think she fairly meets WP:NACTOR. Thank you and thanks for improving the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assessment of improvements to the article since its nomination would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lineage of Ether[edit]

Lineage of Ether (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 has no secondary sources and reads like religious history homework more than a summary of a notable topic Big Money Threepwood (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Procedural close Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

War in Abkhazia[edit]

War in Abkhazia (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)

War in Abkhazia (1992–1993) should be moved here, it is a clear primary topic. Per WP:TWODABS as well, the DAB is not needed. Yorkporter (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Will re-add SALT if needed following deletion Star Mississippi 16:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emir Uyar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Emir Uyar (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)

Bare notability Infestor (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Filing nomination on behalf of the above editor at their request--above text is copied from their attempted edit on the previous discussion page. As the provided references are not in English, I haven't analyzed them myself as yet. Result of the previous AfD was delete and salt--article creator created the article with a disambiguator and CambridgeBayWeather moved the article to the current title over the create protection. Under these circumstances, can we get a G4 check? --Finngall talk 20:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Turkey. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt, WP:G4, looks like a promotional piece to me, drawing on from the content and persistent recreation. Aintabli (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As pointed out below, "Emir Uyar" has already been salted, but I intended to support salting the title with the disambiguation, "Emir Uyar (businessman)", which was the initial name of this entry (used to circumvent salt). Aintabli (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt, WP:G4, bare notability and promotional piece. Infestor (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not salt – I don't think this article is promotional, and there is a hint of potential notability, but not just yet. G4 is not right here. There is a lot more coverage since 2017, and the past AfD had very little participation. TLAtlak 03:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt, G4, no notability, it's PR.Tehonk (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: As noted above, it’s already salted, so calling for that is redundant—it may simply be that the admin who moved the article to the salted title didn’t check that the create-protection was in place prior to doing so. --Finngall talk 05:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    well it should be taken as "keep salting" then :) Tehonk (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G4 and salting of the disambiguation. Killarnee (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater 22:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Father Brown episodes[edit]

List of Father Brown episodes (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 establish that this meets WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD would be merge/redirect to Father Brown (2013 TV series)#Episodes, but would probably unbalance that article. Boleyn (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is an extremely common type of page that is used very widely on Wikipedia for television series with many seasons' worth of episodes. There's no way to establish that the concept "episodes of the program" is covered in reliable sources, as separate from the program itself. It's a notable show, and this is an ordinary split that keeps the article on the show at a reasonable length. Toughpigs (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if a show is notable (and this one is), then it is perfectly acceptable and allowed to split off the episodes into their own page if them being on the page of the show makes it too large to navigate...which I feel like you are saying when you say that a merge would "probably unbalance that article", which it would. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see you first tried to delete this page a couple of times, and were reverted. I have a little bit of experience in this area with both American and British television shows. I've made it my goal to source those episodes where I can find the sourcing. And I agree with the advice given above - if a show is notable, the episodes are split off, and often without sourcing. These types of lists go way back to early television, where sourcing is often extremely hard to find. But that doesn't mean the shows were not notable. It's just one of those phenomenons we have to work around, and source them when we can. — Maile (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this episode guide is deleted then nearly every other guide would go. The summaries are short and only if individual episodes pages were created would you need longer plot summaries and ideally real world information. See MOS:TVPLOT REVUpminster (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Episode list for notable shows have always been considered acceptable on Wikipedia. A valid WP:spinout article. Dream Focus 02:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, deleting episode lists of notable series would require a more general guidelines discussion, because this kind of WP:SUBARTICLEs have always been acceptable. Killarnee (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Zushi mayoral election[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2006 Zushi mayoral election (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 doesn't have any citations, only a few "sources" listed. The winner of the election isn't even notable enough for a page, why then is the election? The city itself is a suburb of Yokohama and has a population of about 58,087, this would be fine, but the article gives me no reason to believe the elections of Zushi are actually notable. The article does not appear to be included on the Japanese Language Wikipedia either. Delete. Samoht27 (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Chandana Dasari[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN nor the GNG. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 19:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genital mutilation (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is not an ambiguous topic, and this page is not at all formatted as a disambiguation page. It is, rather, merely a list of instances of conduct that could be characterized as mutilation of the genitals. BD2412 T 19:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:DABDICT "A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions". — Maile (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The above arguments seem reasonable to me. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Revert to Special:Permalink/555992761, the last good version from 20 May 2013. This was first written as a dab page by SlimVirgin in 2011, but in 2013 revised to its current state by Ranze, a now blocked editor. It always helps to look at the history of these things. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is still not a proper disambiguation page, which would be a list of unrelated topics that happen to share an identical title, like Mercury (planet), Mercury (element), and Mercury (mythology). BD2412 T 02:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. You are right. I was confused since dab pages are often for things that have names related by a common origin but are unrelated topics. And double delete because on examination this is caught up in a controversy about mutilation versus plastic surgery on older women. I suppose one could argue that a face lift is "facial mutilation". StarryGrandma (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Hugo[edit]

Wayne Hugo (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, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NACADEMIC. Theroadislong (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 characters in The Railway Series#Percy (NWR 6). Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Percy the Small Engine[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Percy the Small Engine (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)

Character is not notable enough for its own article. After a search of I could not find anything that would pass GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect to List of characters in The Railway Series#Percy (NWR 6): it does not appear that the notability (or lack thereof) here has changed appreciably since the last nomination. We might need stronger protection than pending changes, though: this appears to be the fourth contesting of this redirect since the first AfD. (I do get the impression that this is another one of those topics that should be notable in a perfect world, but the actual significant coverage is too lacking, among other factors, to allow for this.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure any further protection is needed. This can just be redirected without going through another AfD, on the basis of the last AfD. I would support re-redirect and speedy close. Jclemens (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect. No need to salt/protect this; there is always a chance for new sources appearing or being located and this being written up properly, with reception, academic analysis, and like. What we have for now is again fancruft, sadly, so redirect and WP:TROUT the author. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I don't believe an AfD was merited in this case; nothing has changed to indicate the article is notable. But I still believe it should be redirected per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect per consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panglong (24°3′N 98°9′E)[edit]

Panglong (24°3′N 98°9′E) (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)

Attempted to verify location for disambiguating: there does not appear to be a Panglong in this coordinate location or in Muse Township nearby. Google Earth source cited doesn't show it, Mapcarta source shows it but does not meet WP:GEOLAND. There are other Panglong-named villages in northern Shan State, but the closest recognized by the General Administration Department is about 49 miles southwest of stated coords in Kutkai Township (according to this MIMU map and place codes database). EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panglong (23°53′N 98°22′E)[edit]

Panglong (23°53′N 98°22′E) (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)

Attempted to verify location for disambiguating: there does not appear to be a Panglong in this coordinate location or in Muse Township nearby. Google Earth source cited doesn't show it, Mapcarta source shows it but does not meet WP:GEOLAND. There are other Panglong-named villages in northern Shan State, but the closest recognized by the General Administration Department is about 28 miles south of stated coords in Hsenwi Township (according to this MIMU map and place codes database EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Procedural keep‎. These are not suitable to be discussed as a group. Feel free to re-nominate immediately, individually if there is merit. Star Mississippi 16:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Merchez[edit]

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

Fails GNG and I believe this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Delete as this astronaut is just an astronaut candidate not flown to space and wouldn't fly. As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angad Pratap, astronaut candidate is notable if he/she is assigned a mission like Aleksandr Gorbunov (SpaceX Crew-8 just flew Alexander Grebenkin so out) or has flown to space, has dont anything else notable other than just being astronaut candidate. No improvement is there in this article since creation: WP:ATD-R Can be redirected to List of astronauts by year of selection#1992.—🪦VSVNB1058 (2020-2023) (TALK) 17:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more articles on researching —🪦VSVNB1058 (2020-2023) (TALK) 17:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found after researching will report more if found
Chen Quan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ivan Anikeyev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pratiwi Sudarmono (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sergey Vozovikov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Valentin Filatyev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stephen D. Thorne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fernando Caldeiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) —🪦VSVNB1058 (2020-2023) (TALK) 18:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed list of notified projects for AFD readability. Schazjmd (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They all seem to have slightly different additional notability (or not). Keep all, unsuitable for a mass nomination. —Kusma (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep all of these articles will require individual research into a WP:BEFORE search so a mass nomination is not appropriate. SportingFlyer T·C 19:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep unsuitable for a mass nomination. Also, someones job is not a single event. Furthermore, SIGCOV is what dictates their notability, not whether they have gone to space or not.Alvaldi (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Procedural keep mass nominations is almost always a bad idea, with rare exception of trivially decided cases. - Altenmann >talk 19:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep: in general, biographies tend not to make good bundled nominations, given the wide variability in potential notability. That's not a recipe for the clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy bundled noms are supposed to be. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep: Poor WP:MULTIAFD nomination. Your interpretation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angad Pratap's outcome is completely wrong and the WP:ATD-R suggestion does not apply for all the other nominations you have made. No improvement over the years does not mean they are not notable. It's evident that no WP:BEFORE search was done before the nomination, as I significantly expanded Valentin Filatyev from the first Google Books search result. You are clearly trying to "avenge" [4][5] WP:POINTY. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per above – it's not feasible to try to evaluate all of these in one discussion, especially because some of them will likely require looking for sources in different languages to see if they meet GNG. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Oppose: sorry I subscribed the topic but no notifications arrived, so late reply. Wikipedia:ATD-R is good to add at these depreciated and spaceflight focusing articles where they didn't even flew for those missions. Still even if you think delete is harsh send them to draftspace, but these depreciated articles are clearly not ready for mainspace. —🪦VSVNB1058 (2020-2023) (TALK) 14:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep per all the above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Jack Nicklaus[edit]

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

WP:NOTSTATS applies here. Much of the content here is quite arbitrary as is. Let'srun (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I don't quite see a consensus to move this article to a different title but there could be so I suggest a talk page discussion on the subject. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of traffic circles in New Jersey[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of traffic circles in New Jersey (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 a notable grouping in secondary sources; fails WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Transportation, Lists, and New Jersey. Let'srun (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the several relevant sources already in the article demonstrating notability of traffic circles and their connection to the state of New Jersey and showing that "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as required by WP:LISTN, there's also "Love or hate highway traffic circles, N.J. is the reason they exist. You’re welcome." in NJ.com (the website of The Star-Ledger), "NJ’s hated traffic circles are on the way out", from WKXW, "All About Roundabouts" in The New York Times, "South Jersey: How roundabouts impact traffic, transportation", in The Daily Journal, and "CASEY: Should New Jersey get the blame for right-of-way confusion in roundabouts?", in the faraway Roanoke Times blaming New Jersey for traffic circle confusion in Virginia. Yes, this meets the notability standard for lists. Alansohn (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the coverage shown above by Alansohn. Left guide (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep and move to Traffic circles in New Jersey as suggested below. Left guide (talk) 06:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the other list of roundabouts in state - this appears to be WP:OR. SportingFlyer T·C 19:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what is original research here in this article being discussed or how this article relates to others, but there are plenty of reliable and reliable sources in the article and available elsewhere, as listed above. Are you sure that the issues you cite can only be addressed by deleting the article and not by editing it? Alansohn (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the list of sources provided by Alansohn. Yes, this list does need a lot of work, but the topic of NJ traffic circles has been described as a group (e.g. The Horrible New Jersey Traffic Circle. Why Do They Still Exist? in 105.7 The Hawk, this study on Conflicts at Traffic Circles in New Jersey). The main issue is the fact that NJ doesn't count the exact number of traffic circles, but the FHWA does acknowledge that they were (at least one point) used widely - in fact, more than in any other state. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think my issue is I could use similar sources to justify a list of roundabouts in England article, but I have absolutely no idea how that would be encyclopaedic. The fact you say New Jersey doesn't count the number of roundabouts does demonstrate this is WP:OR. SportingFlyer T·C 09:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't be surprised if there's sufficient sourcing to establish notability for a List of roundabouts in England article, but again that's not relevant to this discussion. And as long as we aren't stating in wikivoice that "New Jersey has x amount of roundabouts", I don't see how such OR violations would occur. There is sourcing available for this as a cohesive topic as well as the {{dynamic list}} template to accommodate uncertainty on the tally. Furthermore, WP:NLIST doesn't require an exact sourced count as part of its notability criteria. Left guide (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just don't think because one article has photos of 12 roundabouts that we need to have a list of all of the roundabouts in the state. SportingFlyer T·C 10:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As Left guide says, an exact count isn't needed to meet WP:NLIST—that's why dynamic lists may exist. According to NLIST, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."
    It would only be OR if we did count the number of traffic circles in this article's table and said "NJ has XYZ number of traffic circles". But to avoid that, we can choose to include only traffic circles that are described as such in a reliable source. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (I also support moving this page to Traffic circles in New Jersey, but this also implies that the page is kept.) – Epicgenius (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 25 references in the article already, and Category:Traffic circles in New Jersey exist. Lists are always more useful than categories since additional information can be listed. Sources have also been found talking about these as a group. Dream Focus 10:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As shown above & in article, satisfies Wikipedia:LISTN, thus GNG.Djflem (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe useful or interesting (not offered as NLIST or GNG)
    • Sisto, Rich De SistoRich De (July 22, 2021). "The Horrible New Jersey Traffic Circle. Why Do They Still Exist?". 105.7 The Hawk.
    • Franco, Judi FrancoJudi (January 24, 2024). "How to navigate a NJ traffic circle in 5 simple steps". New Jersey 101.5.
    • "NJ Still Has Silly Rotary Rules". www.jefftk.com.
    • https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1991/1327/1327-009.pdf
    • Operational Improvements at Traffic Circles (Final Report) December 2008 NJDOT and FHWA
    • https://togethernorthjersey.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Roundabouts-v-circles-info-draft-5.21.19.pdf
    • Thomas, Kayla ThomasKayla (October 15, 2019). "New Jersey: Birthplace of the Traffic Circle". 94.5 PST.
    Djflem (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Traffic circles in New Jersey; lose the List.James.folsom (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Delete The standards for sources used to establish notability are more stringent than the standards used for sources used as citations. The sources discussed here are not of sufficient for establishing the the notability of this list. There are also problems with significant coverage as well.James.folsom (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC),[reply]
    problems with significant coverage - Could you elaborate on this, please? I see sources like this which do provide SIGCOV for the topic of traffic circles in New Jersey. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Traffic circles in New Jersey; lose the List. I don't see how this is different than the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of roundabouts in Washington (state). What specific citations satisfy WP:NLIST for New Jersey? "Traffic circles in STATE" are likely notable per the cited sources but I'm not seeing how a list of them is notable for the NJ citations but not the WA citations. Would prefer to have consistent articles across states. PK-WIKI (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't mind this outcome. I've at least learned New Jersey has a bizarre relationship with roundabouts because of this... SportingFlyer T·C 01:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm open to this suggestion as well. There do seem to be some useful sources provided here that would fit well in that type of article. Let'srun (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anarchism in the United States. Star Mississippi 16:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers' Solidarity Alliance[edit]

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

This article has been limping along for years as a perma-stub, and in that time only one citation to a reliable source that is independent from the subject has been found: Kinna 2012, p. 357 (this source provides only a single sentence of information about it, in a long list of other organisations). Looking through Google Scholar,[7] I haven't been able to find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Most of the sources found are from members of the organisation (i.e. Tom Wetzel), or authors connected directly to the organisation (i.e. Workers' Solidarity Movement) or are false positives (i.e. Emma Goldman). Others only provide passing mentions to the WSA, in longer lists of other organisations (i.e. Gustavo Rodriguez, Robert Hlatky).

As I haven't been able to find evidence that this organisation meets our general notability guidelines, and as I can't see any obvious redirect targets (although IWA-AIT, Anarchism in the United States or anarcho-syndicalism are potential options), I'm proposing this article be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- Sufficient sourcing to meet GNG. To say that Hlatky only provides a mention in a list is not the case. There are a few paragraphs on both WSA and its Edmonton Chapter. This along with Kinna seem to me to be sufficient. Central and Adams (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails NORG. The Hlatky piece is based on interviews and briefly describes that the Edmonton org existed, that it had a listserv, and that it failed, and it notes the basic facts of the existence of the main org. Kinna is a very similar brief description of the organization. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect to Anarchism in the United States per Czar. I do not think a merge is appropriate as summarizing this organization would be outside of the scope of that article. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Anarchism in the United States as an alternative to deletion. In 15+ mins of searching books and scholarly sources, I did not find significant coverage in enough depth to write a dedicated article. There is little independent sourcing about the org apart from that it existed, which means prime candidacy for a redirect. I did find a number of mentions[8][9] so we should cover it similarly, i.e., in a one-sentence list among other anarchist organizations in North America (incl. Canada but I think a US-article mention is sufficient). czar 09:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Mege deletion is completely unnecessary.--User:Namiba 13:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and no indication further input is forthcoming as discussion had stalled four days before the relist Star Mississippi 16:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Druxy's[edit]

Druxy's (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've done some research into Druxy's and it doesn't seem to be notable at all. If you search in Google News, they only mention a few things such as an acquisition and a listeria incident. Indeed, I would even say that this coverage is merely trivial.

Also, Williams Fresh Cafe doesn't even have its own article on Wikipedia.

If there's any new info about its notability feel free to share it otherwise, this article should be deleted. Thank you. WizardGamer775 (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WizardGamer775 (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Oh, there's coverage. Food-borne illness outbreak [10], [11]. Not strictly about the company, but their food handling got several news reports about the outbreak. Those are just the first two I pull up. Oaktree b (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was quite the outbreak [12] and another incident [13]. They're likely notable for the number of outbreaks that have happened alone. There's coverage in this book from 1986 about Bruce Druxerman, the founder [14], but it's paywalled from my location. Google doesn't want to pay for displaying news, so most sites are walled off... Frustrating. VPN to the rescue. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NCORP requires better sourcing than a few trivial mentions here and there related to a listeria incident. None of the above sources are significant coverage about the company. You must have guts to pretend that "A person contracted a Listeria infection after eating food sold at the ​Druxy's restaurant in Princess Margaret Cancer Centre" or "The sandwiches were purchased from the Druxy’s restaurant in the cancer centre" count for something in terms of notability. --Cavarrone 08:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 16:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rohilla[edit]

Battle of Rohilla (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)

Negligible mention of the battle in the acceptable sources listed here. Most of the article appears to be written from the Gurbilas Patshahi, which is a primary source and has been explicitly deprecated by admins-[15]. The two other sources, Hari Ram Gupta and Fauja Singh's work, make only passing mention of this battle; both are short paragraphs, and are identical to one another. Tony Jacques' source is a tertiary one, with thousands of short entries related to thousands of battles spanning fom Europe to the Americas to Africa to Asia which took place over hundreds of years. It too only contains a few sentences about this battle. This event clearly does not deserve an entire Wikipedia article since it fails WP:SIGCOV-[16]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the source by Tony Jacques? UnbiasedSN (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is a tertiary source which includes a very short summary of thousands of battles which took place around the world, from Europe to South Asia to North America to Africa, spanning hundreds of years. While the source could be used to bolster reliable, secondary sources with a strong focus on South Asian history, on a standalone basis, it is quite weak and only serves as a complementary, auxillary source. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One unreliable source and three reliable sources. I cannot verify Gurbilas but little search proved its primary source and sure shot unreliable but looks like the parallels from this source is focused on the belligerent names in infobox. Reliable sources have particulars with enough coverage to have this battle considered notable. RangersRus (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A source being reliable is not the be all, end all for content creation, the sources actually have to mention the event at hand in a substantive manner; a short paragraph isn't going to cut it. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please explain how the listed sources have "enough coverage"? How are two sources with the same identical paragraph adequate enough to make an entire Wikipedia article? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. UnbiasedSN (talk) 06:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closer: I updated the article, removed the OR and the content sourced from the deprecated primary source, Gurbilas Patshahi. The current state of the article is a reflection of the coverage from its sources. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yona (musician)[edit]

Yona (musician) (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)

Failed WP:GNG, WP:NBLP, and WP:SINGER criteria showing no significant coverage for individual notability from secondary reliable sources that is independent of the subject. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cem Sevim[edit]

Cem Sevim (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. A WP:BEFORE didn't even find database entries. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 12:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)}[reply]

Rasa Mažeikytė[edit]

Rasa Mažeikytė (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:NOLY, WP:BIO, or any other criteria I can think of. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 14:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't see that. I'll withdraw my nom, thanks. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 12:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caster Concepts[edit]

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

Subject is non-notable. vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 14:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters. Editors can Merge any content they believe is appropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hector the Bulldog[edit]

Hector the Bulldog (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)

Normally I would redirect this article to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters, but I do not think that would be appropriate because not only does the single source only mention this character in passing, but the article itself mentions more than one possible name for the character. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 12:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Animal. Skynxnex (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Comment (redirect as fall back, definitely not delete) even if occasionally this character has a different name in some appearances, that isn't a reason to delete the most common and acceptable name. It maybe means there should be a bit of disambiguation at some Spike-character location. As for why (weak) keep, admittedly are a bit thin but they're widespread; here's a few He's used as an example in books about dogs ([17], [18]), as an example in books about physical education [19], poetry [20], mentioned as debuting 60 years ago [21], face used in religious artwork replacing baby Jesus's [22]. Skynxnex (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC) 13:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skynxnex WP:SIGCV is an issue, I don't think the cited examples meet our treshold of more than a passing mention? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus:My reply was somewhat in hope that based on what I did find that WP:EXISTS was true in this case and it'd be found by others. Seems somewhat less likely now so changing my vote to be mostly neutral since I know my opinion that non-BLP, but verified and culturally well-known and widely mentioned, should be kept is not the predominate position currently. Skynxnex (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with the recurring characters section of List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list. No indication of notability shown. The multiple names can likely just be redirected to the given section, with whatever name is the most used (In this case, likely Hector) being the primary one. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the list. Optionally merge what little can be verified. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 🍪 CookieMonster 10:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May Mabel Adamson[edit]

May Mabel Adamson (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's a person who became a teacher then a headteacher. I see that there is an entry in an Australian biographical dictionary but I'm not really seeing what the claim to notability is in terms of the en.wiki inclusion criteria. JMWt (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Education, and Australia. JMWt (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Skynxnex (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That would be WP:ANYBIO #3! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ANYBIO:People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
    Therefore this can't actually be used as an argument for !keep. JMWt (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think everybody is included in national biographical dictionaries then? They're very selective. To my knowledge, nobody included in such a publication has ever been deleted at AfD, indicating clear consensus that it counts as sufficient coverage per WP:GNG. What do you think the point of WP:ANYBIO #3 is, exactly? It's essentially to point out that it would be utterly ludicrous if Wikipedia didn't consider someone notable when a reliable biographical dictionary did. So, yes, it's a perfectly valid argument. Far more so than your vague "I don't think she's notable", which is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't simply offer presence in a national dictionary of biography as a slamdunk, the policy guideline you've literally pointed to says so. There is no guarantee of inclusion, as it says. I say this is one of the cases when this person hasn't met the inclusion standards because they've not done anything notable.
    If you want to argue on the usual basis, then kindly offer 3 significant independent reliable sources in the usual way. JMWt (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no such requirement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say it was a requirement, I just said this is how we usually conduct these discussions per WP:3SOURCES JMWt (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    3SOURCES is an essay and it provides no actual evidence that the alleged "Wikipedia community norms" actually exist. (An RfC would be an example of something that would be evidence of consensus.) James500 (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. It is not "how we usually conduct these discussions" at all. Another misconception. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp, and pace the nominator's rather boorish commentary, here and on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Hannah Adamson. Let's see if the other visitors to this page agree that being included in a national biographical dictionary is enough. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. Satisfies criteria 3 of ANYBIO with an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. Also has coverage in Trove, in particular: [23] [24][25] [26]. Also has coverage in Dazzling Prospects: Women in the Queensland Teachers' Union Since 1945 (1988) by Roberta Bonnin. James500 (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ROUTINE - simple statements about appointments in newspapers are not usually considered sufficient for notability. JMWt (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The ADB article satisfies GNG, so trying to pick off the newspaper articles in Trove is a red herring. However, WP:ROUTINE is a guideline for the notability of events, not the notability of people. An SNG is not applicable to any article outside the subject to which the SNG actually applies. James500 (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok that's fair. Let's look at WP:BASIC which is part of the notability guidelines for people. It states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    The ADB does not on its own satisfy the standard of WP:ANYBIO and trivial coverage is not usually sufficient to establish notability per WP:BASIC. So let's look at the Trove articles you supply. 1 is coverage amounting to a few paras of an appointment. 2 is coverage amounting to a few paras of an appointment 3 is coverage amounting to a few paras of an appointment. 4 is slightly longer but still is only a few paras. These are by definition trivial. The only source which could count towards notability is the book you mentioned. JMWt (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The depth of coverage in the ADB article is substantial. The ADB article is not trivial. James500 (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. User:JMWt, please just accept that you are arguing against longstanding consensus here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Necrothesp, we've butted heads plenty of times, but I think we both have a decent understanding of our guidelines, and the whole "how we usually conduct these discussions"--you and I have been in enough AfDs to know how erroneous that is. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography is sufficient for WP:ANYBIO#3. Curbon7 (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. JMWt, you appear to be arguing that being a teacher is not significant enough to be notable, but that's not how most of our notability criteria (including the ones for this case) work. If someone has depth of coverage in multiple good sources (or in one extraordinarily good source, or as in this case both of those things) they're notable, even if you don't think what they did was significant. If someone does not have that coverage then they're non-notable even if you think what they did was significant. If a source doesn't describe any accomplishment you find significant, and instead provides depth of coverage in information about the subject that you think is insignificant, it is still in-depth; depth and significance are different things. If you want to push Wikipedia towards a more significance-based standard of notability, and away from its current emphasis on sourcing over significance, then I'm very sympathetic, but deletion nominations for people who clearly pass the existing standards are not a good path to that goal. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in Dict Nat Bio. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)/[reply]
  • Keep She is in ADB and I found more refs to her in Trove than previously indicated. She won the University of Sydney Botany medal in her senior examinations, she was an educator and university graduate at at time when women had only just been admitted to Australian universities, the manuscripts and papers of the school she was principal of are kept in the State Library of Queensland and she is featured in them. I can fill out her article, show she is notable and add more refs later.LPascal (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 🍪 CookieMonster 10:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Hannah Adamson[edit]

Amy Hannah Adamson (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's a person who became a teacher then a headteacher. I see that there is an entry in an Australian biographical dictionary but I'm not really seeing what the claim to notability is in terms of the en.wiki inclusion criteria. JMWt (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Schools, and Australia. JMWt (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Education. Skynxnex (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That would be WP:ANYBIO #3! -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • JMWt, Necrothesp is correct. The fastest way to handle this is to withdraw the nomination. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ANYBIO:People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
      As it says, meeting one or more doesn't guarantee inclusion.
      If you think this person should be included then stop inferring WP:ANYBIO is a slamdunk when the text clearly says it isn't.
      I am not withdrawing anything. JMWt (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • JMWt, no one is kicking your dog. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I’ve no idea what that means. Discuss this topic or don't. JMWt (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll repeat what I've already said elsewhere: Do you think everybody is included in national biographical dictionaries then? They're very selective. To my knowledge, nobody included in such a publication has ever been deleted at AfD, indicating clear consensus that it counts as sufficient coverage per WP:GNG. What do you think the point of WP:ANYBIO #3 is, exactly? It's essentially to point out that it would be utterly ludicrous if Wikipedia didn't consider someone notable when a reliable biographical dictionary did. So, yes, it's a perfectly valid argument. Far more so than your vague "I don't think she's notable", which is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            This is not how we do discussions. I can understand your frustration but I'm not entertaining engagement with you where you try to imply guidelines say things they don't and where you imply somehow I'm not acting in good faith.
            I don't believe someone who has been a teacher and headteacher is notable. I don't believe that simple statements in newspapers would 'normally' count towards notability and I don't believe that we should consider presence in a dictionary of biography as a slamdunk. You don't like it, that's fine. We have a difference of opinion.
            Either discuss the notability with regard to guidelines and policies of en.wiki. Or don't. That's it. JMWt (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            I am in no way implying that you are not acting in good faith. I am saying that you are arguing against longstanding consensus (which is a policy, by the way). You may not realise that you are, but when several other experienced editors tell you that you are then it's time to concede that you may be wrong instead of trying to tell them that they're wrong. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. Satisfies criteria 3 of ANYBIO with an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. Also has coverage in Trove, in particular: [27] [28] [29]. Also has coverage in Dazzling Prospects: Women in the Queensland Teachers' Union Since 1945 (1988) by Roberta Bonnin. James500 (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ROUTINE - simple statements about appointmentsin newspapers are not usually considered sufficient for notability. JMWt (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The ADB article satisfies GNG, so trying to pick off the newspaper articles in Trove is a red herring. However, WP:ROUTINE is a guideline for the notability of events, not the notability of people. An SNG is not applicable to any article outside the subject to which the SNG actually applies. I should also point out that the articles in Trove are actually biographies, and are not merely simple statements about an appointment. James500 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok that's fair. Let's look at WP:BASIC which is part of the notability guidelines for people. It states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    The ADB does not on its own satisfy the standard of WP:ANYBIO and trivial coverage is not usually sufficient to establish notability per WP:BASIC. So let's look at the Trove articles you supply. 1 is coverage amounting to a few paras of an appointment. 2 is coverage amounting to a few paras of an appointment 3 is coverage amounting to a few paras of an appointment. These are by definition trivial. The only source which could count towards notability is the book you mentioned. JMWt (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The depth of coverage in the ADB article is substantial. The depth of coverage in the newspaper biographies is also substantial. The newspapers may be using a recent appointment as an excuse to write a biography, but each biography is not actually about that appointment. They are about the whole of Adamson's life over a period from at least 1926 to 1949. The sources are not trivial. James500 (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography is sufficient for WP:ANYBIO#3. Curbon7 (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as with my keep opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May Mabel Adamson. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP: ANYBIO. Basically appeared in a National Dictionary proves notability. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in Dict Nat Bio. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noizbloc[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Noizbloc (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 record label. Fails to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. I could not find any sources on Google, and nothing has changed since the last AfD. – DreamRimmer (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (or possibly speedy) again no sign of notability of any flavour, just like at the previous AfD. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also thought about applying CSD A7, but I wondered if it had already been rejected for speedy deletion before, which might be why it was nominated for AfD. So, I concluded that AfD would be the best course of action. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Unable to find anything else usable online. Here is an analysis of what we have right now.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.thecompanycheck.com/company/noizbloc-private-limited/U59201TN2023PTC165258 No Provided by company. Yes I suppose it's just factual data? No ✘ No
https://www.planetexim.net/indian-company/noizbloc-private-limited/cin/U59201TN2023PTC165258.html No Yes No ✘ No
https://aeroleads.com/list/top-music-label-companies-in-india No No ~ ✘ No
https://fox40.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/689077362/breaking-boundaries-kadhal-kadamaye-emerges-as-a-musical-masterpiece/ No Press release. ? No ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001wppt Yes Yes No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
TLAtlak 12:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes on TVNZ 2[edit]

List of programmes on TVNZ 2 (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)

Unsourced TV guide type article for a channel. Fails GNG and NLIST, NOTDIRECTORY.  // Timothy :: talk  07:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 15:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of French Open broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all but one are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. and no indication another week will bring on more input Star Mississippi 13:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Crosse Technology[edit]

La Crosse Technology (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 have conducted WP:BEFORE search and I am not finding independent coverage beyond La Crosse Tribune local paper, and repeated mentions of "La Crosse Technology's Atomic Digital Alarm Clock with a retail value of $29.95!" in Popular Science magazine. Graywalls (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Local newspapers are still good sources. I added a couple more cites from the La Crosse Tribune, but yeah good cites are scarce, and I wouldn't complain if this ends up not being enough.--~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-channyan 16:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neko-chan:, WP:NCORP places emphasis on source quality due to susceptibility of companies/organizations article to public relations editing. WP:AUD specifically calls that at least one of the sources providing significant coverage must be regional or national, so based on these guidelines, I find the company unable to satisfy notability. Graywalls (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:AUD purely local mentions do not contribute towards notability. Lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No indication a 3rd relist will bring on anyone arguing to retain Star Mississippi 02:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheam Wei Yeng[edit]

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

Not notable model. Powerviki (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir I have added more details and links please check. She was crowned Miss Universe Malaysia 2022 and represented her country in the Miss Universe 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40F2:1D:BA8D:F993:DA94:FA4C:259E (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 12:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salaga Senior High School[edit]

Salaga Senior High School (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)

Cannot find anything notable about the school - currently an orphan article Newhaven lad (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There are many reports of one event where a teacher at the school shot at students and injured one. E.g.[32], but this is very much a single event. However this research paper [33] studies knowedge of cervival cancer amongst school students. This one uses the school as a case study for sculpture technique [34], PDF available here [35]. This one recruits 330 of the schools students for a mental health study [36]. This study of high school student/teacher conflict may have been predicated on the above incident.[37] and there are a few other related papers. That's a lot of published research carried out at this school, and some of it (especially the conflict study) speaks to notability of the institution itself. It has an enrolment of 1800 students and has been established for 50 years. It can be hard to find information in English on schools in some locales, but that does not mean they are not notable. The state of the article is indeed parlous, but deletion is not for cleanup. I fully understand why the nom. brought this, but it is a keep for me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 21:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

315Work Avenue[edit]

315Work Avenue (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 appear to meet WP:NCOMPANY. Although the presented sources are reliable, coverage is nothing more than WP:ROUTINE. Hitro talk 07:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Hitro talk 07:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I found this title notable as it has enough good references on trusted websites. I respect the editors' tag of advertisement, I'll improv it by removing information which looks like an advertisement . Lazzy Crazzy (talk) 06:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE I've blocked a couple of participants in this AfD as part of a UPE group that have been pushing the same articles over the past four years and evading salting protections by creating the articles under different titles. This article title doesn't seem to fall under that evasion but the participant link (sock/meat) is established through the other articles. —SpacemanSpiff 03:07, 15 March 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! 06:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: promotional based on the references and the article itself. No significant coverage seen. HarukaAmaranth 春香 08:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nominator. Does not satisfy WP:NCOMPANY. Jamiebuba (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore references are required to meet GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines to establish topic notability. They don't, topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 10:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted‎ by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Luqman (activist)[edit]

Muhammad Luqman (activist) (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 able to find anything about the subject on a WP:BEFORE search. The sources on the article does not seem to mention the subject's name. Fails WP:NBIO Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete no source that mentions subject so unsourced BLP; probably self promotion/autobio. KylieTastic (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete In addition to everything User:KylieTastic said, the sources provided don't even mention the subject in question. Also, one of the sources is a TikTok page? Fails basic WP:GNG and no WP:SIGCOV. --My Pants Metal (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte: I agree that the sources are not reliable, it subject fails basic WP:GNG and there has been no signficant coverage. I've also checked claims made in through the process of editing/creating the article, and don't find anything that would change this position. Klbrain (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sleepycat Software. Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepycat License[edit]

Sleepycat License (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 can't find any sources that would establish notablity. I'm not sure about the notability of Sleepycat Software, which is the company that created the license, but I've found very little about the license itself, and notability isn't inherited from the company that created it. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Sleepycat Software, and optionally merge in some discussion of the license at that article. Sources from the early 2000s talk about Sleepycat Software as an example of the "dual-licensing" business model where developers use both an open-source and a proprietary license.[38] However, these place almost no weight on the Sleepycat License. This book contains an entire chapter from Sleepycat's CEO, Michael Olson, where he writes about dual-licensing, without discussing the Sleepycat License: https://ia600907.us.archive.org/1/items/opensources2.000diborich/opensources2.000diborich.pdf Olson advises, "Academic licenses are poorly suited to dual-licensing businesses, but reciprocal licenses generally work well. [...] Choosing the GPL gives you the benefit of the work already done by the Free Software Foundation, or FSF, in drafting the license and defining the key terms. [...] It is almost certainly a mistake to try to draft your own open source license for a dual-licensing business." Even their CEO did not seem to place much weight on it. Rjjiii (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as above. Not notable enough for independent article. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not a strong consensus, but literally no one is arguing to retain, and no indication a 3rd relist will bring any input. Star Mississippi 02:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Hare[edit]

Swedish Hare (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 recognised by ARBA or BRC, no reliable source talks about it from my search. Might have more information available in Swedish under the name Sverigehare. Not to be confused with Lepus timidus which is referred to as the Swedish hare in some sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this breed may actually exist, but this search fails to find anything usable, in Swedish (which I read) or in anything else. If you do find a Swedish source which looks usable, I'll look it over for you. But right now this is a clear Delete, perhaps TooSoon, who knows. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with a side of IAR. It may be technically ineligible, but there is no one arguing in favor of retention and no reason a 3rd relist will bring on any input. Star Mississippi 02:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Garagiste Festivals[edit]

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

Article is mainly promotional in nature, cites the subject's press release as a source, and arguably violates TOU per maintenance tag. Any truly notable material can easily be merged into similar articles. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coreeda[edit]

Coreeda (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 on every level. Most of the citations fail verification. Prod was contested with reasoning that significant coverage exists in books, good faith search found that is not the case. Spagooder (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm not seeing significant independent coverage to show WP notability. The art isn't even mentioned in a number of the sources. There are links to organizations with ties to the art, a single mention in an article about a wrestler who once studied coreeda, links to blogs and the Coreeda Association of Australia, and a link to a self-published book--but no reliably sourced significant independent coverage of the actual art. Papaursa (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It looks like adequate sources have been located. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zita Cabello-Barrueto[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable academic. Mostly POV. Fails GNG, SIGCOV, etc. Nirva20 (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to either Center for Justice and Accountability or Caravan of Death for reasons cited in colloquy below with @Goldsztajn. The subject (Cabello-Barrueto)'s notability derives almost entirely as a plaintiff in lawsuit (Cabello Barrueto v. Fernández Larios, 291 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2003)) -- not as an academic or author. Apologies for any inconvenience. Nirva20 (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agreed; non-notable, unsourced — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oort1 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn -- The article as it exists is blatant (and outdated by decades) POV/OR: "She strongly opposes George W. Bush's stance against John McCain's anti-torture bill; Bush objects to the bill because it does not exempt the CIA. Her disdain for torture comes from her personal experience under Chile's CIA-initiated coup d'état". I don't know if the lawsuit itself is sufficient to establish notability. If so, then maybe the article should be the lawsuit not Cabello-Barrueto, whose extensive bibliography is here. Nirva20 (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nirva20: An article's lack of neutrality is not per se grounds for deletion. I don't see what the link has do with Cabello-Barrueto's bibliography; it's a publisher's blurb for a book she wrote. I've just linked five reliable sources, from multiple years, which contain significant coverage of the subject. This satisfies the WP:GNG/WP:BIO; if you wish to maintain an argument for deletion, you need to address why these sources do not establish Cabello-Barrueto's notability. FWIW, apologies if you are already aware of this, but if not, please have a read of WP:BEFORE. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We all make mistakes. I did a Google search but found nothing impressive.maybe because all the links are in Spanish. That's on me. But Cabello-Barrueto is not notable as an academic or as an author only as a plaintiff, by your own words. The article should be redirected to the lawsuit you cited. Nirva20 (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles linked contain SIGCOV of the person, this means she satisfies the WP:GNG. I did not say she's only notable as a plaintiff ("especially noted" were my words), but even if I did, that is irrelevant. We assess the content of sources, we question the reliability of sources, we examine the relevance of sources, but we do not get to choose *why* a subject is notable, the sources determine notability for us. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 🍪 CookieMonster 10:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yangyuan & Tiesiyuan station[edit]

Yangyuan & Tiesiyuan station (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 appear to meet WP:GNG - while there are plenty of sources about the line, none seem to discuss this station in any detail. A redirect to Line 5 (Wuhan Metro) seems best. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 🍪 CookieMonster 10:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjiao Road station[edit]

Sanjiao Road station (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 appear to meet WP:GNG - while there are plenty of sources about the line, none seem to discuss this station in any detail. A redirect to Line 5 (Wuhan Metro) seems best. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. A 4th AFD might be avoided if some of those sources the editors arguing for a Keep were added to the article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yakov Kazyansky[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Yakov Kazyansky (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)

Last AfD was no consensus due to low participation. 1st AfD a weak keep with low participation in 2008, when standards were lower. I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, or a good WP:ATD. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Isn't it too soon for a re-nomination? Within only 1 day? Tehonk (talk) 09:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The closure was marked as WP:NPASR. With less articles at AfD right now, hopefully there will be enough editors to look at it and come to a consensus now. Boleyn (talk) 11:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh OK I see. I'll try to take a look, although the language barrier will probably make it hard. Tehonk (talk) 11:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't feel like fewer articles at AFD right now, I still see hundreds if not a thousand+. Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liz is right: With less articles at AfD right now, how? compared to when? And how is this an argument in favour of (very) speedy renomination of this page? Procedural keep. Sources were presented at the first Afd and the 2nd one. And have not been added to the page. If the nominator is really concerned about the notability of the subject, she should in my view review those sources, or have them reviewed by an expert or at the projects. Renominating pages without taking presented sources into account is really not a good thing, I think. Also, pinging the contributors to the last Afds would have been a good idea. The fact that the 2nd Afd is presented only as no consensus due to low participation. without even mentioning the numerous sources presented by User:Ostalgia is misleading. Pinging @Explicit, OlenWhitaker, Davewild, CaliforniaAliBaba, Alex Bakharev@CAPTAIN RAJU and Ozgod:-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will admit to having been a bit puzzled by the insta-relisting. My keep vote was not particularly strong but I also would have appreciated some reference to the sources. I have not had much time of late but I could provide some commentary on them if necessary. Similarly, if there is consensus to keep I could try to flesh out the article myself over time. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'm sorry but I see no Keep vote or sources from Ostalgia.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources from Ostalgia are in the 2nd Afd talk. Maybe you have checked the first only? (This is the 3d Afd.....) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mushy Yank, I was looking for them in this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as well as the sources identified by Ostalgia in the second AfD there is also coverage at AllMusic with a staff written bio here and two staff album reviews here and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC) striking comment as it was the wrong Russian pianist, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Atlantic, the sources you linked are for a different individual, pianist Yakov Kasman. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more chance, in hopes of avoiding a no consensus result.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep based on the multiple sources in Russian identified by Ostalgia in the second AfD linked at the top right of this discussion that incllude several newspaper articles and together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ostalgia's research in the second AfD, looks somewhat enough.Tehonk (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per all above. Svartner (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after reading second AfD nomination; sources do establish notability. Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 21:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 National Law School of India University. Star Mississippi 13:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Journal of Law and Technology[edit]

Indian Journal of Law and Technology (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 per WP:NJOURNAL Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 03:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 National Law School of India University. Star Mississippi 13:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Law School of India Review[edit]

National Law School of India Review (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 per WP:NJOURNAL Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 03:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Law, and India. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 03:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to National Law School of India University, its publishing institution. There's no real claim of notability here. That the "journal has been cited in various publications" and "the only student-run journal to be cited by the Supreme Court of India" are misleading; it is not the journal that is being cited, but the article published in the journal. This might suggest notability of the authors whose work is cited, but not the publication where the articles were published. Further, in that respect, "student-run" is irrelevant, since it is the author that is being cited, the fact that he or she published in a student-run journal has no bearing on its notability.
It's worth a paragraph in the law school's article, but lacks notability for a free-standing article. TJRC (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edgeryders[edit]

Edgeryders (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 "social enterprise" does not seem to have enough significant coverage or reliable sources to meet WP:NORG. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I read this discussion as having a consensus to Keep this article. Editors who still believe a Redirect is more appropriate can bring this up on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Moreno[edit]

Bernie Moreno (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 political candidate. Doesn't seem like he's gotten much news coverage outside of routine coverage of his Senate campaigns. I would support a redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Ohio. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With him being the presumptive GOP nominee and having significant press coverage he more than meets the requirements to have an article. JacobJaurigue (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - he's the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, and 'routine coverage' for a major senate campaign is usually enough to be notable. TocMan (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that claim holds water. Previous AfDs for Senate frontrunners with no other claim to notability were closed as delete -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hung Cao and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John E. Deaton. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to know whether there were scandals associated with him and figured since he is a Republican that if anybody has any dirt on him, wikipedia would have it boxed in heavy type. Happy to see there is none. 2603:6010:BC00:24AD:19A0:DCA8:D0D5:6931 (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the whole gay sex scandal part? Anyways, thanks for helping prove my point about brand-new accounts showing up to argue the page should be kept. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Virginia U.S. senate race is widely considered to be a safe seat for incumbent senator Tim Kaine. Moreno's race for the Ohio seat is considered highly competitive, and has received much more coverage. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a search engine, it's a repository of articles about notable topics. Per WP:10YT, something should not have a Wikipedia page unless people will still be trying to find information about it in 10 years. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the voters in Ohio need information about the candidates so they can make their voting decisions — that's what Ohio's news media, and the candidates' campaign materials, are for. But it's not Wikipedia's job to maintain an article about every candidate in an election primary — our job is to maintain articles about people who have already achieved something important enough that people will still be looking for information about them 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years from now. That is, he'll get an article if he wins the election in November, but does not get one just for being a primary candidate in March. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Neither of those things proves notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He has also had significant press coverage from many different sources for his role as a candidate, his endorsements, and his scandals.
And now that it seems the primary election is going on and he has won, I believe that my position here has been further vindicated. JacobJaurigue (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, rather than being some nefarious SPA plot, it's because you nominated the article for someone who's been in the news non stop for about four days for deletion? Heaven knows people will go to Wikipedia to check out who this guy is once they read about what he's been up to, see the big huuuuge red banner at the top and think "Hey, I think this guy is notable". Also, that "brand new account" was actually created in June, it just didn't edit 'til now. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably keep. Reading the article it just got better and better. Hey, if it has the sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that it has the sources. How does the campaign coverage cited here satisfy WP:GNG? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it has sources is far from enough. Those sources must be WP:SIRS, and even that is not enough to overcome WP:BIO1E and the requirements of WP:NPOL. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, which requires the politician to have been elected or pass WP:GNG. Current coverage is WP:BIO1E. UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that this article has previously been WP:BLAR'd a few times prior to this recent new creation. Restoring the redirect would be an appropriate WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the article on the election. Since he would not have otherwise received an article if he had not run for office, he is not "permanently" notable yet. SportingFlyer T·C 14:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Ohio#Republican primary per SportingFlyer. Current sourcing is routine campaign coverage, not sufficient (see WP:NOTNEWS #2 & #3, and WP:BIO1E) to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. No prejudice against re-creation if he wins the election. Sal2100 (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Changing my !vote per WP:HEY and rationale of ser! below. Sal2100 (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article now passes WP:GNG definitions
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
The significant coverage is met with recent conversations in national media
Presumed: Significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article.
The sources are reliable (Associated Press)
The sources are secondary
The sources are Independent of the subject Nardo19672 (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC) — Nardo19672 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You can't just copy-paste the definition here, you have to actually explain how Moreno satisfies it. Also, this is another brand-new account showing up to vote keep. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing is that even if someone passes GNG, they still may not be eligible for coverage. We have long standing practice that candidates themselves are not notable just for being candidates because of the type and caliber of the news which is generated about them. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I think we can wait until Tuesday. If he loses the nominating race, then delete. If he wins, keep. Twopower332.1938 (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is actually a great argument for deletion, as you are confirming he's only notable because he's a political candidate for office. SportingFlyer T·C 13:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I came here purposefully looking for Moreno’s stance on LGBTQ+ issues, after reading an article on him and the AFF account. News articles often have right or left leans, and I was looking for a relatively non-biased source of information. Why remove a source of factual information in this current world of biased news? 75.165.128.33 (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC) — 75.165.128.33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Because that is not the role of this encyclopaedia - we are concerned about documenting lasting information. There is no reason why that information could not be found on the page about the election. SportingFlyer T·C 19:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Moreno supporters coming here with their brand-new accounts to vote keep: it's probably smart to avoid leaving a comment that makes it really obvious you don't actually care about notability and are just trying to keep Moreno's page for partisan reasons. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Ohio#Republican primary. It is standard that candidates aren't notable just for being candidates, and this individual doesn't seem particularly noteworthy outside of his candidacy, and his notability could change in the near future so I don't see a good reason not to redirect. If it is to be kept, it needs to be cleaned up at the least. And BottleOfChocolateMilk is right about all these accounts–at least three or four of the arguments presented here should honestly probably be discounted. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that some of these arguments are weaking my stance just a bit. I'm honestly surprised that no one's come in here yet accusing us of having a political agenda. Of course now that I've said that... Anyway, I do wonder if becoming the nominee now adds any notability? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect. Being a "frontrunner" in an election primary isn't grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, and even winning the primary still wouldn't be grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself — the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. But having a smattering of the merely expected run of the mill campaign coverage is not sufficient in and of itself to claim that an unelected candidate has passed WP:GNG and is therefore exempted from NPOL — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show enough campaign coverage to attempt that argument, so if that were how it worked then NPOL itself would be meaningless and unenforceable since no candidate would ever actually be subject to it at all anymore. The test for making a candidate more special than other candidates hinges on whether you can show coverage in other contexts besides his candidacies, to establish that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacies, but this is showing nothing of the sort.
    Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the general election, but simply being a candidate in the primaries is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One will note that Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill is an essay that has not been vetted by the broader community and that
    the section on politicians was added to it by the above editor, who now seems to be quoting themself as an argument. Djflem (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also long-standing practice at AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 10:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One will note that I didn't make anything up myself, and everything I said was established fucking consensus, that is routinely upheld at AFD, about how the notability of unelected candidates works. The bar they have to clear is permanent notability, not current newsiness — to demonstrate that a candidate is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, you have to assume that the guy loses the election and then never does another notable thing again as long as he lives, so that "was a candidate in an election that he lost" is his peak notability claim for all time, and then still somehow find a credible reason why people would still be looking for information about his campaign in the 2030s and 2040s anyway. Not because I say so, but because every AFD we've ever conducted on any unelected candidate says so. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — fails WP:NPOL, WP:BIO1E, WP:RECENTISM. Redirect wouldn't be best, as he's run failed campaigns other times, so there isn't a good single target. Wikipedia policy and guidelines are supposed to have long term meaning, not merely based upon feelings of the moment. Right now, this doesn't even meet the general historical requirements of The Political Graveyard.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair but I think his candidacy in this election is more noteworthy than his candidacy in the 2022 election, as he dropped out somewhat early. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In the 2022 race, he dropped out well in advance of the primary; in this race, he was the frontrunner and had Trump's endorsement. At this point, the fact that he also ran for a few months in the 2022 race is trivia more than anything. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsements don't make unelected candidates more special than other candidates Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage by international newspapers does. Djflem (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would absolutely call that normal coverage for a Senate candidate. Nobody arguing "keep" seems to be able to cite any non-campaign-related coverage of Moreno. And the argument about "international newspapers" is meaningless. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - all of this can be covered on the election page. SportingFlyer T·C 21:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A merge of the three or four or five paragraphs about Moreno into the election article (all of this can be covered on the election page) would certainly be a lot of weight about one candidate. Coatrack articles are never good. Djflem (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of those paragraphs are about his campaign platform. If he loses and we remove those, there's nothing left to report on. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this guy is all over the news. Deleting his article would probably make the news. Abductive (reasoning) 22:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This guy is all over the news" is A. subjective, and B. not a valid argument for notability. What's going to happen in ten years when this campaign is long forgotten and Moreno is no longer "all over the news?" Are people still going to be searching for information about him? Can you cite any news coverage about him that's not related to this campaign? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot imagine that any admin will agree with your argument—the most specious to disgrace AfD in a good long while—and delete this article. Abductive (reasoning) 01:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most specious to disgrace AfD in a good long while– Would you mind explaining? Deleting his article would probably make the news–I agree, but I don't see how that's a reason to keep it. Well, Bottle, it seems we may have our second assault on democracy cut out for us ;) AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you know. In any case, no amount of haranguing here will prevent this article from being kept. Abductive (reasoning) 04:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think I know. In any case, I'm not attempting to harangue; if the community decides to keep the article, then so be it. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have removed some contentious controversial material pending discussion on talk page - would be good if some experts at WP:BLP can join the discussion Mr Vili talk 01:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any argument for why this page should be kept? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is good sourcing and the person meets GNG but currently the article has some severe BLP issues Mr Vili talk 12:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Comment Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Ohio#Republican primary as a usual and appropriate outcome for a candidate for a federal legislative body (see WP:POLOUTCOMES. I agree with Bearcat with how NPOL is interpreted. Also, winning the primary is not necessarily sufficient to warrant a stand-alone article. Many verifiable biographical details can be included in the page about the election. --Enos733 (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking a second read through the sources, especially the Plain Dealer feature, this is probably a closer call than what I originally saw. There are some sources that predate the 2024 election that could be seen as significant, especially in conjunction with the 2024 Senate bid.
    That all said, there are good reasons why the community has not automatically considered all candidates for federal office as worthy of a stand-alone article. Pages about politicians are ripe with campaign-related content and positions on all manner of political positions and have a tendency to be edited only by campaign supporters (or campaign opponents) - meaning the neutrality of political candidate pages are suspect. There is also an important question of fairness if we open the doors to all candidates (or all candidates to federal office) - as would a member of the Alliance Party who runs for Congress entitled to a stand-alone page? What about candidates who are part of a party list (in a system using proportional representation). Also, we are not Ballotpedia, whose mission is to provide information about all candidates.
    I do recognize that these subjective comments do not answer the question about whether a subject meets WP:GNG. That said, there is a more foundational point about privacy that is embedded in our policies and guidelines. One of the most fundamental points is once an subject meets the notability standard, that subject will always be notable. This is a good guideline, especially used in conjunction with the ten-year test. However, losing political candidates, especially those without any prior elected experience, are more akin to a low-profile individual. After a year, or after six months of seeking the public spotlight, these candidates fade quickly into the background. Media attention wanes or disappears, and maybe there is an obituary that mentions they were a candidate 30 years ago. From our perspective, those pages are not updated, can be a place for unreviewed spam, and more likely, a repository of political positions that can quickly age.
    This is why the campaign pages exist. The campaign pages can (and I think should) do a better job of providing a (verifiable) background about the candidates without the need for a stand alone page.
    That all said, we are in the middle of campaign season in the United States - and with our first past the post, winner take all election system, we will see more pages about candidates created by eager supporters. I do hope that as editors bring these candidate pages to AfD, there is a focus on sourcing in the discussion - and less on comments like "the candidate is leading in the polls," "the candidate is the party nominee," or "the other candidate has a page." - Enos733 (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking redirect !vote. I still think redirect is the better action, because election pages are more neutral than stand-alone pages, which I fear quickly become campaign repositories or trivia of political positions (added by eager supporters or opponents of the candidate). That said, it is likely that the volume of material about the subject will be sufficient to overcome any question about sourcing. But, that gets to the second question of WP:N, that meeting GNG does not mean that a subject should have a stand-alone article. This second question is even more subjective and is not well answered in the middle of a candidate-centric election. --Enos733 (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your point, but I still don't think he would have been eligible for an article if he hadn't become a political candidate, and I do hope the closer will take the weight of past consensus into consideration. SportingFlyer T·C 15:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is long-standing convention that Wikipedia is not a repository of campaign material (either negative or positive) for unelected candidates for political office. In large democracies like India and the United States there are many hundreds if not thousands of candidates running for office. Much of the sourcing is about his candidacy for office and is effectively promoting his political views: "Running on an outsider image, Moreno has expressed positions on big tech, such as breaking up monopolies via anti-trust laws and "ending wokeness." Literally all of the influx of keep !votes by SPA accounts about fail to advance any policy-based reasons to keep the article. Coverage of endorsements from fellow politicians is routine election coverage that does not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a GNG pass - and on that, the idea that GNG passes have to meet their specific subtopic notability criteria, like NPOL as is referenced here, is entirely inaccurate given WP:N's literal lede - as even taking the Delete votes at their best, the coverage is far beyond WP:MILL. The Guardian, Axios, The Plain Dealer for just three that meet WP:SIRS - all significant coverage, all independent of the subject, all reliable and all secondary sources. Even beyond his current candidacy, there's SIGCOV of Moreno as a car dealer - The Plain Dealer again, Automotive News - and coverage of his unsuccessful run from 2022 in Jewish Insider. Combine all of these and it's impossible to find an angle through which Moreno doesn't pass GNG. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article even further with sources that meet WP:SIRS, including an entire piece about him by Cleveland Scene, another piece about his appointment to the MetroHealth board from the Plain Dealer and an article about comments he made during COVID-19 by WKYC. The case for Moreno passing GNG is clear. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The case is far from "clear." So it seems like the only non-campaign-related coverage is a couple of Plain Dealer articles and..."Automotive News." I'm not convinced. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, there's zero reason for you to exclude all campaign-related coverage as conveyors of notability, given he *is* a political candidate. If it was just run of the mill "Moreno to host rally", "Moreno announces such and such thing", I'd understand. But if you look at the sources, you've got elongated profiles of him, reports about dirt coming out about his past, news articles being written about the guy - all stuff written specifically about Bernie Moreno, indicating that he is a notable person. But even taking your desire for "only non-campaign related coverage" at its best, you've got multiple articles in reliable sources specifically about him with the various Plain Dealer articles and WKYC (and the Automotive News outlet you take scorn upon, which isn't just some blog website), providing significant coverage. That's multiple pieces of significant coverage, which by DEFINITION is a GNG pass. I don't think you're going to be convinced (and given you've replied to all bar one of the keep votes, would recommend you have a look at WP:BLUDGEON), but given at least one other editor has switched their vote over the actual provision of these sources I will leave this reply. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Moreno is the front runner for the seat in the Republican primary, and he has a chance to become the next Senator in 2025, due to Ohio trending more Republican in recent years. Jeffersonian111 (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Having a chance of becoming a U.S. Senator does not prove notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL is totally irrelevant here as the ONLY thing that special subject notability guideline does is offer some presumed notability to certain government officeholders (a freebie, as it were), nothing more. Djflem (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL establishes that "just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." The user I was replying to tried to claim that Moreno was notable based purely on the fact that he is an unelected candidate for political office. Seems relevant to me. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Until after he either loses the primary (which doesn't seem likely at this point) or general election and then reassess the notability. If he wins the general, he would get an article by default. There's no harm in using the wait-and-see approach which seems most appropriate here. Noah, AATalk 00:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He just clinched the nomination. In my view all major party nominees for US Senate are notable, as we established in 2020 with the Administrators' noticeboard for Theresa Greenfield. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what the close said. The close was "Consensus is that the subject (Theresa Greenfield) does meet the GNG. NPOL defers to the GNG in the case of unelected candidates." The only question is whether the subject meets GNG (and the extent the subject meets WP:NOT:WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROMO, WP:CRYSTAL, along with WP:BIO1E and to the extent that candidates should be considered low-profile individuals for participating in one event or pass the ten-year test for sustained coverage. - Enos733 (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He just won the nomination. I think that will be enough for this. Wollers14 (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He just won the Senate primary in Ohio, this point is no longer true. 2600:1014:B189:E3E0:8120:CB44:1B9C:8D6E (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel like folks should pay attention to who Donald Trump endorses before flagging stuff like this. Tanukichi23 (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tanukichi: Do you think that's how we run an encyclopedia do you? AusLondonder (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he has received widespread coverage after winning the Republican primary for the 2024 Senate election in Ohio, which is a statewide race and widely considered to be a highly competitive race. I would support deletion if this was a U.S. House or state legislative race, but because this is a race for statewide office he has sufficient notability. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Major party nominee for statewide political office with a well sourced article that seems to be improving as time goes by. If Moreno isn't notable, then a lot of pages on this site should be nominated for deletion for other individuals. Planetberaure (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / Redirect to the main race article He has no notability whatsoever outside of this election. He would only warrant a standalone article if he is elected to the Senate. Griffindaly (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Obviously notable BLP. Opposers unconvincing. Let’s wrap this up and pull the article tag asap. Jusdafax (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reading this whole discussion has been... interesting. Personally just looking at the significant amount of WP:RSP covering the person I would say keep. Plenty of the coverage are in-depth looks as well in addition to routine coverage. Grahaml35 (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article has significantly improved since this was opened and I think WP:GNG and WP:NPOL are sufficiently met now. Additionally, I would argue that it doesn't matter if candidates 'have no notability outside of/after the campaign' since we aren't there yet; there is clear notability now, which means the article should be kept. Gazamp (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a major-party candidate for the U.S. Senate is an appropriate qualification for someone to be the subject of a Wikipedia page. Now that he has won the primary, the deletion nomination should be deleted. 2603:7080:7B06:2A00:95F:27EC:78F5:894B (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me to what policy or guideline says that being a major party candidate for the US Senate means you're "entitled" to a Wikipedia page? Does this apply in any other countries? AusLondonder (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the original creator of this page as a redirect, I would not have argued for keeping this until very recently. But now that Moreno is now a major party nominee in a battleground Senate race, and even during the primary campaign, has received significant coverage in reliable sources regarding his campaign for office, he almost certainly meets WP:GNG and WP:NPOL now. And he will almost certainly continue to receive coverage that will be sustained now that he has received the nomination in a major Senate race, satisfying WP:SUSTAINED, while continuing to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Precedent since 2020 has generally been to keep the pages of major party nominees for important Senate races if they receive significant press coverage, and WP:NPOL has been amended to reflect this reality. Muhibm0307 (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When was NPOL amended? We've always been concerned with lasting notability here - i.e., if we looked at this in ten years, would we still keep it? And we're not there yet, everything on the page can be adequately covered on the elections page. SportingFlyer T·C 14:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given precedent in the past, articles where the candidate is in this stage of the campaign in an important race have generally been kept, given their tendency to result in sustained media coverage as a consequence of being a major party nominee in a battleground race. Muhibm0307 (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: per AllTheUsernamesAreInUse. This is standard WP:NPOL stuff and we should be consistent. Yes, his candidacy is getting a lot of press at the moment, but he's not otherwise notable (yet). Marquardtika (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Major party nominee for US congress in a state that is shifting to towards the republican party. Considering Trump won the state in 16 and 20 by almost 10 points and looks to be up in the polls for the state by 10-12% the state will most likey vote for Bernie if trump wins the state. The past few elections nationwide have shown crossballot voting for president and state has almost all but gone away. user:koolkidmitchel 3:17 (UTC), 20 March 2024.
  • Keep - Political candidates, particularly those who have won their party's endorsement for the US Senate, are subjects of public interest. Wikipedia serves as a valuable resource for voters seeking information about candidates, their backgrounds, policies, and positions on various issues. Deleting Moreno's article could deprive the public of important information relevant to democratic decision-making.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG and the rationale provided by User:ser!. There is a lot of non-routine news coverage of this guy. City of Silver 15:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Candidates for office aren't presumed to be notable, but Moreno is a major party nominee for U.S. Senate in one of the most closely-watched races in the country. We're still months from Election Day, and he's received more than enough non-trivial press coverage to meet WP:GNG. Rockhead126 (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So apparently all "major party" candidates for office are considered notable now? For permanent entries on a global encyclopedia? Does this only apply in the US? Would love to hear from some of those applying these ludicrous, non-policy arguments above. AusLondonder (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, most of the arguments here are incredibly biased toward USA political content. Happens every four years. SportingFlyer T·C 12:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The following comments have been copied and pasted from the afd talk page: Sal2100 (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete instead of adding various perspectives? Mr Moreno is obviously a real person of public interest. If elected to Congress, he will also become someone particularly influential. As a result, people will naturally want to learn facts about him. It doesn't make sense to remove the article. If someone has issues with the man, they could just add facts to the article. By removing the article, there's less of a chance for people to get an unbiased view. 2607:FCC8:FFC0:5:5C63:D3DD:3558:C75E (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because everything in the article is directly related to the fact he is a current candidate, and all of that information can be covered on the page about the election. Candidates who lose are generally not notable enough for an article - we need to make sure that he has lasting notability, and the vast majority of the keep !votes here violate WP:NOTNEWS. If we'd delete the article if he lost, which several keep !votes are suggesting, then we need to redirect and cover his candidacy on the election article. SportingFlyer T·C 12:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Why delete instead of adding various perspectives?" - Okay, then should Nella Domenici and Ty Perkins also have articles? They are just as notable as Bernie Moreno if our criteria is that low. Which shouldn't be the case. We should have higher criteria for articles concerning politics because this could potentially turn into campaign propaganda ifwe are not careful with these pages. Radiohist (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This person is notable for only one event. If we have surmised that Bernie Moreno hasn't done anything significant in his career as a businessman prior to this, then this page needs to be deleted asap. Radiohist (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP! We the People have a right to fact-based information about candidates that will make decisions that affect all of our lives! Why would anybody want to delete it??? 74.83.88.92 (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's not what the encyclopedia is here for. We're not merely a fact depository. Same goes with the other IP comment copied from the talk page. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I'm not even from the United States but I have been following the Ohio Senate elections and was surprised Bernie Moreno had no Wikipedia profile until days ago. It is great that he now has a page, so why would anyone even think of deleting such a notable personality's profile. Bernie has been dominating the news for weeks now, and there is a clear huge public interest about his life Applehead1000 (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreno hasn't been a notable figure in Ohio politics in any way. Regarding the fact he is a nominee for senate, well, so are Nella Domenici and Ty Perkins, but they don't have wikipedia pages. Because all three are notable for just one event.Radiohist (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per arguments made by User:Ser!, this article seems more than notable enough to be kept. Zinderboff(talk) 06:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG per Ser! Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A modern nominee from the U.S. Democrat or Republican parties for a federal position is inherently notable. Coverage of his COVID controversy in 2020 adds further credibility that he was a major community figure prior to the last four months. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While not all major-party Senate nominees pass WP:GNG, those nominated for highly-competitive elections certainly do so. Ohio is currently represented in the Senate by Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, with Moreno as his opponent. This Senate race, in a state which Trump won in both 2016 and 2020, is one of the most competitive in the election, having been rated as a tossup by the Cook Political Report (https://www.cookpolitical.com/ratings/senate-race-ratings), the UVA Center for Politics and Sabato's Crystal Ball (https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2024-senate/), and Inside Elections (https://insideelections.com/ratings/senate), with Split Ticket even giving Moreno the edge at Leans Republican (https://split-ticket.org/senate-2024-ratings/). All of this points to the race being extremely competitive, with Moreno having a very strong shot at becoming Ohio's next Senator. If he were to win, an article for a sitting US Senator would most certainly pass both WP:GNG and WP:10YT, but it is my belief that the article would still pass both even if he were to lose. If past elections and current fundraising are anything to go off of, the race between Brown and Moreno is likely to be one of the most contentious, most focused-on, and most expensive races of the cycle and having a Wikipedia article for the candidate would be certainly within Wikipedia's guidelines, even in 10 years. I certainly don't think the article at its current state is as in-depth as it can or should be, but nevertheless, Bernie Moreno will with all certainty be one of the most notable non-incumbent figures of the 2024 Senate elections, making him deserving of an article now and many election cycles down the road. AnOpenBook (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Sims (video game)#Expansion packs. Redirecting with history preserved under redirect for further expansion, if needed in future. Note to nominator: BOLD merge was good but nominating for AfD after merging was redundant. Nevertheless, any expansion in the future can be salvaged from the history preserved. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims expansion packs[edit]

The Sims expansion packs (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)

Similar to what has occurred with The Sims 2, I have created independent pages for each expansion pack, which strike me as independently notable and therefore appropriately demerged once the proper review sources were found and drafted on each page. This article now has no purpose other than as a list that would hypothetically be better assimilated as a WP:MERGE with the primary page The Sims. This change has been signalled on the talk page for a while without objection. The article now offers little information on its own that couldn't be found on a page for the game or the individual expansions, and is therefore appropriate for deletion. Nonetheless putting this page to an AfD for visibility and proper discussion given that it is a major article change. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Sims (video game)#Expansion packs TarkusABtalk/contrib 02:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per TarkusAB. Congrats on fleshing out each entry enough to render the page moot. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think it's inherently bad to redirect, but I don't think it'd be a common thing for someone to type to find expansion packs. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The Sims expansion packs" seems like a believable search term for... the expansion packs of The Sims. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A Google search, maybe, but redirects don't come up often at all on Google (I don't even know if they list?). I suspect that anyone going to The Sims expansion packs on Wikipedia do so by an external link, an internal link, or because they searched for a name that redirects to it, I can't imagine that someone is searching for "The Sims expansion packs" on Wikipedia. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Thank you for your effort! You’ve done an excellent job. Theknine2 (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Wouldn't an overview article of the expansion packs be an idea? I haven't looked, but my bet is there are some reliable sources that list and discuss the expansion packs of The Sims. Then you've got a developmental and release history article. If we'd treat this as a proper series, we wouldn't delete an article on a series when there are articles about the individual games. Just a thought. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate the thought and would ordinarily be all for it! This would be an excellent idea, if there were sources out there that discuss the expansions at length, which I've surprisingly not found to be the case. As you can see in the individual articles, the development information is surprisingly scant on these. Best I've found when treating the expansions as a whole is a few listicles ranking the expansions and an odd review or two of the Full House collection, but nothing that really deals with development at length. The gist is, they pumped a few out, expanded the team and contracted New Pencil to do part of them around the time of Hot Date, and repackaged a few of them. This could easily be dealt with as a section in the primary article. But if there's stuff out there... ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, keep and improve or redirect for now: What is the issue with having a list of Sims expansions when we now have 7 separate articles about them? I turning this article into a "List of Sims expansion packs" and removing the game infobox. IgelRM (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Sims (video game)#Expansion packs per those above. Redirects are cheap, and this one matches a properly named section title. BD2412 T 02:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge. The article could be merged or redirected to The Sims (video game)#Expansion packs, but with a few changes. The articles uses Amazon as one of its sources, which goes against WP:RSPAMAZON. Otherwise, a redirect or a merge would be apt, as I see no reason the article could go against WP:MERGE or WP:R. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to this article, I did a WP:BOLD merge to all the content and citations to individual expansion pack pages, leaving only the headline paragraphs for each, so that's why the remaining sources look a bit rubbish. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bold merge and then AFD nomination would seem to impede the discussion process. Like why not just bold redirect if you are already bold moving content. IgelRM (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree this was not ideal and the better approach would have been to draft article pages and seek a more direct discussion than a passive talk page notification of intending to merge. I think there is still merit in this discussion as some have shared views that the page could still serve a purpose, but the cart probably shouldn't have been parked before the proverbial horse. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Rename‎. to Clive and Vera Ramaciotti Foundation as per relative unanimity. I'll undo the redirects and make the move. Star Mississippi 01:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Ramaciotti[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Clive Ramaciotti (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)

Previous AfD was no consensus. However, some suggested merging/moving to Clive and Vera Ramaciotti Foundation but that now redirects here. I still believes he fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sydney Morning Herald article scrapes by as significant coverage of the charity.
  • Australian Women's Register article has info on the charity and has lengthy bio on Vera.
  • cite to a library's holdings of clippings on Cliff, but no real evidence the author actually saw them or that they support material in the article
Oblivy (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It looks like this AFD is at a similar conclusion as the first AFD. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chinese Civil War#Resumed fighting (1946–1949). After discarding Keep views based on a minimally-attended AfD ten years ago about a different article, consensus seems to lean towards a merge or redirect. The choice between Merge and Redirect can be made editorially on the Talk page, and doesn't justify another relisting here. Owen× ☎ 14:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War[edit]

Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War (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)

Redirect to Chinese Civil War#Resumed fighting (1946–1949). I'm skeptical that this WP:SPINOFF article is necessary at all. It was started because there was some confusion over why Chinese Communist Revolution doesn't have the same name as the English translation of the Chinese Wikipedia's article's title.

GoldWitness, the English and Chinese Wikipedias don't have to line up perfectly. Links between Chinese and English articles are meant to link the two articles with the most similar subject matter, not exact twins. This is a natural result of the fact that English and Chinese historians describe this period of history differently, and group the events differently.

If it's decided this article is necessary, GoldWitness please see these instructions on how to do it properly: WP:CORRECTSPLIT SilverStar54 (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for letting me know the instructions on splitting an article! In my mind, the Chinese Communist Revolution differs so greatly from the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War that a spinoff is necessary. As the article describes, the Chinese Communist Revolution "is about political and social developments, and the origin and aftermath of the war" while the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War is the second stage of the Chinese Civil War. In other words, one is about political and social development, and the other is about the second stage of military conflict. They are not lining up slightly differently. Instead, they are two almost completely different subjects.GoldWitness (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right that "Chinese Communist Revolution" and "Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War" are not the same things. That's why I'm suggesting that this page become a redirect to Chinese Civil War#Resumed fighting (1946–1949), not Chinese Communist Revolution.
I also agree with you that the Chinese article on the "Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War" probably should not be linked to the English article on the Chinese Communist Revolution (or the other languages' articles on that topic). Personally, I would support you creating a new Wikidata item for the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War and assigning the Chinese article to that item, rather than to the one for the Chinese Communist Revolution (although other editors might disagree). Here's a helpful guide on how to edit Wikidata: [40], and some introductory stuff about interlanguage links.
Basically, I think you're rushing to create a new article when this problem could be better solved in other ways. SilverStar54 (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for showing me the guide on Wikidata. I've never heard of Wikidata before! I will look at it some time. GoldWitness (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding rushing to create a new article, I saw some editors suggest that this article's content and sources were not enough for a spinoff. So, I wanted to show that this article has substantial content and sources by expanding it rather than spending time thinking about and writing an opposing opinion. Once this article is developed, I think the arguments supporting those comments suggesting a merge or deletion in this AfD debate will no longer be valid. Anyway, thank you very much for sharing your opinion! GoldWitness (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a new article in Wikidata called "Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War" and linked several languages to it. Thanks! GoldWitness (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SilverStar54! I have launched a discussion about those languages, which are titled "Chinese Communist Revolution" while actually referring to the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War in Wikidata. I think this may be controversial, and thus, a consensus is probably needed to change the links further. I hope you can participate in this discussion. Thanks! GoldWitness (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This request is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Communist Revolution. If you go back to see the what the article Chinese Communist Revolution was like in 2013 when the deletion request was made, you can find that all of its content was about the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War. So, there is no need to discuss again on whether a WP:SPINOFF article is necessary. GoldWitness (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: the article seems like it's still in the process of being written, so incubating it in draftspace until it gets expanded sufficiently would probably be better than deletion. DrowssapSMM 14:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. If there were much, much better sources to prove coverage for the subject there would be a stronger case for keeping the article. But as it stands it would be better merged given a huge deficit in content. GuardianH (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Do you think it is a better choice to give editors some time to edit this article? If, after some time, this article still has a huge deficit in content, we can post another AfD at that time. The fact that this AfD was launched fewer than 2 hours before the article was created gives no chance to add content and sources.
    GoldWitness (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Related to sources, I have added some books in the "Further reading" section of this article. These may be useful for citation. GoldWitness (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – if Chinese Civil War was 5000 words longer, I would support this being a separate article, but as mentioned above, it seems presently best to have one article with the adequate level of detail. Remsense诉 06:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Communist Revolution, a consensus has been reached before. Haha33 2 (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What? That's a different article. Remsense诉 09:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article Chinese Communist Revolution in 2013 and this article refer to the same event. So, they are actually the same. Haha33 2 (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They do not. Wars and revolutions are different historical events, even if they blur together. The French Revolution is not the same thing as the French Revolutionary Wars. American Revolutionary War and American Revolution are also separate articles. Russian Civil War, Russian Revolution, and so on. Remsense诉 12:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think they are different, I will reuse the opinions in this discussion.
    "The article [Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War] is linked to from Chinese Civil War and the former is supposed to be a sub-article of the latter covering the second part of the civil war. The article Chinese Civil War contains only summary information of this subject which should be expanded upon. Poor quality content is not a reason for deletion of an article. Rather the article should be improved to meat the required standards." ---- Rincewind42
    "I find it generally unfathomable that this topic would not deserve its own article. Just becase a topic can be thought of as a part of another topic doesn't mean it can't have its own article. There is plenty of overlap of this kind on wikipedia and it is a very good thing. There's plenty of bad content on wikipedia's china related articles, be bold by deleting clearly bogus content, not the articles. (not to suggest there aren't also plenty of bogus articles). WP:AQU, I've made this kind of mistake myself." ---- Metal lunchbox Haha33 2 (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think it's reasonable for this to be its own article as a sub-period of Chinese Civil War, and to be summarized there. My concerns were merely that splitting the article was not the correct balance at this particular moment. Remsense诉 02:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think that this and Chinese Communist Revolution are substantially the same subject, wouldn't you want to merge this article with that one? Why would you support keeping this article? SilverStar54 (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because this and 2013's version of Chinese Communist Revolution are substantially the same, and the deletion discussion of Chinese Communist Revolution took place in that year. I think the consensus reached in 2013 was that the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War was a part of the Chinese Civil War, and it deserved its own article, and I reused it in this deletion discussion. This article and the current version of Chinese Communist Revolution differ. In other words, Chinese Communist Revolution used to wrongfully refer to the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War, but it is corrected now. Haha33 2 (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay that makes more sense. I still think that Chinese Civil War isn't long enough to require a split, but I understand your position. SilverStar54 (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without keeping a redirect. Super Ψ Dro 15:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Chinese Civil War#Resumed fighting (1946–1949). In English, this war is generally known as the Chinese Civil War, or at least part of the Chinese Civil War. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we all agree that this is a part of the Chinese Civil War. What we are discussing in this AfD is whether this topic deserves an article. I think being a part of the Chinese Civil War is not enough to prove that a split is not necessary. GoldWitness (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of television stations in Alabama#LPTV stations. ✗plicit 01:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WCQT-LD[edit]

WCQT-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 WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. PROD was declined with the suggestion that this page be redirected or merged to a page that does not currently exist now (although it did at the time), and I don't see any other possible targets now. Let'srun (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Salvador Allende. ✗plicit 01:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allende stamps[edit]

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

I don't see any evidence that "Allende stamps" is a notable topic. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with the existing entry on Salvador Allende under the Memorials section. No need for a separate article on such a trivial item. nf utvol (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Salvador Allende as per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Specifically, I would suggest renaming the 'Memorials' section on the Salvador Allende article to 'Legacy', with two sub-sections, one being the current content in this section (titled 'Memorials') and the other being the content of the AfD-nominated article (titled 'Stamps'). Redtree21 (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Salvador Allende, it fails to establish individual notability (and I agree with the proposal made by Redtree21 above). Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdraw‎ per recommendation of participants that the outcome of the first AfD should be upheld and further move-warring without improvement treated as a behavioral issue. signed, Rosguill talk 15:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chai Khang Chao[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chai Khang Chao (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)

Immediately moved back to mainspace without improvement following a Draftify result at AfD. See prior AfD for arguments regarding notability. signed, Rosguill talk 00:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Thailand. signed, Rosguill talk 00:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify until episodes are released and then notability can be reassessed, particularly as there will likely be more sources available at that time. Redtree21 (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This should just have been re-draftified per the AfD result, with an explanation and WP:trout stern reprimand to วรุฒ หิ่มสาใจ. If anything, this is a behavioural issue on part of the user, not an AfD one. Rosguill, I would withdraw this nomination and move the page back to draft. I've already given วรุฒ หิ่มสาใจ a warning, in English and Thai, as they do appear to be unwilling to communicate in English. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly support Paul 012's suggestion. WP:DRAFTOBJECT does not imv apply in the present case and rather: "Authors should try to understand and respond to the reason for moving to draft status, and then use the AfC submission process to have the page moved back to mainspace." (unless either the article is vastly improved or something has changed in the real world that makes the status of the subject considerably different (just like in a similar situation treated in this essay) (but the series has not been broadcast yet, as far as I know)). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_March_15&oldid=1215074216"