Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 11 May 13 >

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 keep‎. ✗plicit 23:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hanna's Animal Adventures[edit]

Jack Hanna's Animal Adventures (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; no sources. Merge with Jack Hanna. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Sheppard, Deirde (2022-08-29). "Parents' Guide to Jack Hanna's Animal Adventures". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      The review notes: "Animal Adventures is somewhat lighter and breezier than other wildlife shows. Kids will find it sweet when Jack kisses a dolphin and may lobby for scuba lessons when they see him jump into a pool filled with colorful tropical fish. One word of caution: Although the show has plenty of endearing moments, some episodes include a few graphic encounters as well."

    2. Plympton, N. (1997-03-11). "Jack Hanna's Animal Adventures: Baby Boomers". Video Librarian. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      The review gave three out of four stars. The review notes: "Television personality, author, and director of the Columbus Zoo in Ohio, Jack Hanna is the amiable on-camera host of this informative, lively program about the care and feeding of baby animals in captivity. ... A no-frills nature documentary with its fair share of entertaining facts. Two paws up."

    3. Finkle, Jim (2005-02-14). "Small Distributor, Big Plans". Broadcasting & Cable. Vol. 135, no. 7. p. 11. ProQuest 225325749.

      The article notes: "The company's most successful show, 15-year-old Jack Hanna's Animal Adventures, is available weekly in 93% of the U.S. In a good week, it has pulled in higher ratings than The Ellen DeGeneres Show. ... The household rating for Animal Adventures is averaging 1.5 this season, putting it somewhere around No. 85 among the 153 shows rated by Nielsen. It is tied with NBC Universal's The Jane Pauley Show. The FCC has been one of Hanna's biggest supporters, awarding him the U.S. government's seal of approval: Animal Adventures can be included as part of a station's requirement to broadcast at least three hours of educational programming each week."

    4. Murphy, Thomas J. (April–May 2000). "Gross and Goofy Adventures of Jack Hanna". Boys' Quest. Vol. 5, no. 6. Bluffton News Publishing. p. 2. ISSN 1078-9006. EBSCOhost 2931692.

      The article notes: "Have you ever been knocked over by a gorilla or bitten by a shark? Such is the life of Jack Hanna in his weekly series, Jack Hanna's Animal Adventures. ... Hanna does part of each show from his base camp at Busch Gardens, Tampa Bay, Florida. But he also travels all around the world. ... Hanna loves working with animals. Even so, it is not an easy job. He was bitten in the leg by a lion just last year. And a five-foot-long crocodile leaped out of his hands and grabbed the end of a $40,000 camera. ... Another painful episode happened thanks to an emu. An emu is an Australian bird related to an ostrich. "He kicked me in the groin," said Hanna, putting me out of work for three days!""

    5. Olson, Catherine Applefeld (1997-02-22). "Jack Hanna's Animal Adventures". Billboard. Vol. 109, no. 8. p. 82. ProQuest 227103088.

      The review notes: "The animal magnetism of Jack Hanna continues to charm a growing TV audience, and now video retailers have a chance to do the wild thing as well. Three first-time-on-video titles "Baby Boomers," "Gorilla Quest," and "It's Elephant Time!"- spotlight a trio of his most popular programs. Automatic winner "Baby Boomers" is an up-close and personal visit with the truly young and restless, including baby giraffes, gorillas, Africa's wondrous native sons. Lighter than National Geographic, but substantive enough to qualify as educational programming."

    6. Watson, Mary Ann (Winter 2001). "Jack Hanna: He's a Natural". Television Quarterly. Vol. 31, no. 4. p. 66. EBSCOhost 503839288.

      The article notes: "When his series Jack Hanna's Animal Adventures began in 1993, I was delighted by the opportunity to watch him weekly. The show aired early Saturday mornings, in the block of time reserved for children's shows. As I watched, though, I began to notice something a little odd. The commercials weren't all for kids' stuff. There were ads for moisturizing lotions and room fresheners. It turns out I wasn't the only middle-aged woman who found the Homo sapiens as much fun to watch as the other species on the show. About 49 percent of viewers were women between the ages of 18 and 64."

      The article notes: "Jack Hanna's Animal Adventures, which he hosts with daughter Kathaleen, airs on the PAX network six days each week. It's also syndicated internationally ... One of the most fascinating episodes of Animal Adventures was a behind-the-scenes look at the preparation and logistics involved in producing a Jack Hanna segment for Good Morning America."

    7. Oakley, Mat; Harris, Paul; Kalina, Paul; Farrant, Darrin (1998-07-02). "Programs - Saturday". The Age. ProQuest 363301539. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      The review notes: "From the opening sequence of this American wildlife show for kids, it's obvious that Jack Hanna loves what he does. There he is with parrots on his head, or skidding around in a Land Rover, or running away from a lion. This man, unashamed goon that he is, has a show pitched at just the right level for its audience. Today's effort, called Mating Games, has Jack asking: "Just how do animals fall in love?" To answer his question, a series of experts are wheeled on to explain how jellyfish, camels and condors, among others, do it. Jack receives each nugget of information with exaggerated wonderment and, in turn, makes every fact seem wonderful."

    8. Mendoza, N.F. (1994-05-08). "Shows for Youngsters and Their Parents Too: Now entering 'Weinerville' on Nickelodeon, where the puppets are people too". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      The article notes: "Conservation is a serious message to television's Jack Hanna, but animals' innate ebullience lends a light side to his "Jack Hanna's Animal Adventures," now in its second season. ... Hanna, whose "ZooLife" ran for two years in syndication, has been the director of the Columbus Zoo for 16 years. ... "Adventures" expands the original "ZooLife" format, which was set exclusively in zoos and featured Hanna interacting with the animals. The show will travel throughout the world this season with planned excursions to Africa, Australia, the Guatemalan rain forest and the Galapagos Islands."

    9. Less significant coverage:
      1. McKinney, ErinMarie (2000-09-17). "Animal Magnetism - Hanna's Passion Helps Keep Columbus Zoo in Spotlight". The Columbus Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

        The article notes: "His syndicated wildlife show, Jack Hanna's Animal Adventures, airs on 230 stations in the United States and 62 other countries. ... VideoTours produces Jack Hanna's Animal Adventures, the top-rated wildlife show in syndication, which will enter its eighth year this fall. Company President J.R. Johnson said VideoTours and Hanna normally work without a contract."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jack Hanna's Animal Adventures to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it can be said that a few of the sources from the analysis above are "run of the mills" reviews, but regardless SIG coverage is established here. X (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Post-close comment: So why doesn't someone edit the article to add in the new sources? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Amantia peruana. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amantia peruana peruana[edit]

Amantia peruana peruana (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)

Subspecies are not inherently notable, while species are. Author declines to merge to the species article. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Amantia peruana. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amantia peruana infasciata[edit]

Amantia peruana infasciata (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)

Subspecies are not inherently notable, while species are. Author declines to merge to the species article. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many subspecies based articles. If you want to remove them the why not remove all of them? See Category:subspecies Uploader1234567890 (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, subspecies are not inherently notable. That doesn't mean no subspecies are notable, just that the notability of a subspecies must be demonstrated. Your argument is WP:WHATABOUTISM and that doesn't fly here. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Amantia peruana, as with Amantia peruana peruana. There isn't any new information in each subspecies article that isn't in the species article, except an unsourced sentence about etymology. It would be great to see additional information about the subspecies, but it would still be more appropriate for a merged article presenting all the information in one place rather than three separate articles with a high level of duplication. Mgp28 (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an acceptable (and expected) WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mgp28's rationale, but I think WP:PM would have been a better venue for this. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merger was proposed but rejected by the author. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG: Just because someone wrote the first version of a page doesn't mean they WP:OWN it. They can't unilaterally reject merging it, any more than they can unilaterally reject its deletion. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Gilbert mayoral election[edit]

2012 Gilbert 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)

Delete per WP:MILL Okmrman (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Discussion on a possible move can be discussed on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-disliked YouTube videos[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of most-disliked YouTube videos (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)

If this list isn't wildly out of date now, it eventually will be. Dislikes on Youtube cannot be reliably counted anymore. The last deletion discussion decided to keep it for so-called "historical relevance", but I don't see how historical relevance justifies having an article that just progressively worsens with no hope of fixing it unless there's a chance of YouTube returning the dislike count. ―Howard • 🌽33 22:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, nothing has changed since the last AFD attempt. There is sufficient coverage of this topic even if dislikes no longer exist. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the problem. Nothing has changed and ever will change about Wikipedia's list, which means it's always going to be inaccurate and eventually won't be able to provide any list that is consistent with what reliable sources consider to be "the most disliked videos". ―Howard • 🌽33 23:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Since allegedly there is still an extension to check dislikes.
Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The extension is merely a very rough estimate and will never be a reliable source. ―Howard • 🌽33 08:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since this list's topic is covered by multiple reliable sources. That said, I think a requested move discussion might be worth it. The addition of something like "(2010–2021)" would help make the title much more precise at this cost of a little concision. I hope that would address some of the nominators concerns. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree that article needs to be renamed as there are still videos that get dislikes to today despite not being publicly available. Some sources to justify WP:LISTN would help. Conyo14 (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any RS coverage of “the most disliked YouTube videos” post-2021 would most likely be referring to the current most disliked videos in reality. If you can find sources that justify maintaining a list that only goes up to 2021, I will reverse my deletion request and instead start a move request. ―Howard • 🌽33 05:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No matter how trivial this whole subject sounds, it is still notable and there can be no policy based reason to justify proposed deletion. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletion request is not based on “triviality”, it is due to the fact that we cannot reliably
    update the article to align with reality. If the dislike count were returned by YouTube, I would support keeping the list but certainly not now. ―Howard • 🌽33 05:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not being able to update the page is not a rationale for deletion. Anarchyte (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, it is. Like I said before, YouTube dislike counts are still growing, and are most definitely are overtaking some videos from 2021. But Wikipedia cannot definitely say what videos exactly are now the truly most-disliked. Ergo, "List of most-disliked YouTube videos" is a misleading title, and a list Wikipedia can no longer present. ―Howard • 🌽33 10:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The valid deletion rationales don't change between AfDs; there's always the same list of reasons. Please see WP:DEL-REASON, and note that "cannot be updated" is not one (another piece of reading could be WP:WIP). Anarchyte (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at some news sources post-2021, they’re all regurgitations of the wikipedia list, which I guess could be notable enough considering that RS coverage of wikipedia does recursively get articles on wikipedia itself. After considering the matter further, I’ll retract my request for deletion but I will push for a Moving of the article to a title similar to List of most-disliked Youtube videos up to 2021. ―Howard • 🌽33 11:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the last four nominations. Anarchyte (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first three nominations are all pre-2021 and unrelated to this discussion. ―Howard • 🌽33 11:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Anarchyte (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The argument that we are obliged to update the article does not make sense because updates will eventually be provided by the users who are taking interest in the subject. Azuredivay (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article cannot be updated. It is impossible. Dislike counts are no longer viewable. ―Howard • 🌽33 15:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic of most disliked videos is covered by RS. If the concern is that it can't be updated, the scope should be refocused to the period up to 2021, you know, like the nominator said they would do. Not a reason for deleting. Neocorelight (Talk) 07:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Phoebe (moon)#Named features. ✗plicit 23:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leto Regio[edit]

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

No RS's found and fails WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO. Proposing to redirect article with Phoebe (moon)#Named features. ArkHyena (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom SevenSpheres (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 01:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Travel Town Museum. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Pacific 1273[edit]

Southern Pacific 1273 (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 cannot find any secondary sources covering this locomotive. Could be redirected to Travel Town Museum or deleted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have more than one Redirect target article proposed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the Travel Town Museum is fine, it's associated with the museum. Oaktree b (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence G. Costanzo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lawrence G. Costanzo (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 lacks notability under the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Article survived a 2007 AfD but notability thresholds can change. Let'srun (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Se-lib[edit]

Se-lib (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)

Open source library without secondary coverage. BrigadierG (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain further? What do you mean by secondary coverage? Can you give an example? Mudcap (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, all 5 criterion set out at WP:GNG - significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For software in particular, there's discussion of the most likely forms that would take at WP:NSOFTWARE. BrigadierG (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SECONDARY explains secondary sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have added references from additional sources independent of the subject. Included explanations that the library was funded for development, is used regularly in the classroom in multiple classes, on research projects, and is the subject professional training venues. I could add more instances. These should all qualify. Thank you for the improvement suggestions. Mudcap (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of the sources in the article seem to be independent. For example, this tutorial was taught by a lead developer of the library. Coverage from the organization funding the project is not independent either. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was taught be a developer, but the tutorial was sponsored by the independent International Council of Systems Engineers, San Diego Chapter. They decided to run the tutorial for the sake of its members, spend resources for it, and it is the listed on their website. Doesn't that qualify as independent? Thanks. Mudcap (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not - WP:IIS BrigadierG (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Any of the sources used aren't reliable or are passing mentions; I don't find anything extra about this software package, other than where to download it. Oaktree b (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Mary Higgins Clark#Selected television adaptations. No one argued to keep. When in doubt, go with the half who say to redirect without receiving objections. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try to Remember (film)[edit]

Try to Remember (film) (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:NFILM; no sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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 23:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Troy[edit]

Kali Troy (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:NBIO; no sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wekiva Presbyterian Church[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG; no sources; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it were verifiable (as stated in article) that this church's webcast truly was the first ever/longest running, that would be notable, but the only source for this claim is a former pastor's personal blog. No other evidence of notability for this church. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there doesn't seem to be any independent coverage at all online. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Cape Verde[edit]

Battle of Cape Verde (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 battle. The article is comprised of mostly LLM slop, and extrapolates fake/conflicting info from a real but minor skirmish (mentioned on page 159 of the source listed). – Hilst [talk] 20:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Clear LLM work which is mostly nonsense. It contains nationalist neutral point of view violations (states that the battle "highlights the bravery and resilience of those involved in defending against piracy", the article also claims that the battle is "a testament to the challenges faced by maritime trade during the early 18th century."). While the discussed battle happened, its almost certainly unnotable. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clermont Sans Fil[edit]

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

No indication this was ever notable and completely WP:UNSOURCED but given I don't know French, decided to AfD instead of PROD out of an abundance of caution. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is only one source that could potentially be considered reliable for WP:NORG, but at this point it fails both WP:NORG and WP:GNG. No reliable hits online either. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Cocobb8's rationale. Though there is a list of four references, all four appear to come from the organization's own site and therefore cannot be considered RS's. ArkHyena (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Various websites mention Clermont-Ferrand, but nothing found about this wifi initiative. What's used for sourcing isn't enough, basically profiles of the org. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "sources" listed as references appear to be republished pr items by the group itself, or various blog items. Oaktree b (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 23:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Riccioli[edit]

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP with no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of in-depth coverage available online. All I found was routine transfer news (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Property Shop[edit]

Property Shop (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 about a television show, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:TVSHOW. This was created in good faith in 2009, a time when we essentially extended an automatic presumption of notability to any television series that was verifiable as existing regardless of the quality of its sources -- but that's long since been deprecated, and a television series now has to be shown to pass WP:GNG.
I've found very little sourcing of value on a WP:BEFORE search, however: I was able to replace the primary sourcing that this was formerly based on with one newspaper article about the show, but other than that one source I only found glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things, such as other similar TV shows about other people and Tatiana Londono's later career ups and downs after this show ended, which might support a BLP of her as a person but doesn't establish the notability of this show as a show. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Doyle, John (2008-07-09). "Big hair and a loud personality can take you only so far". The Globe and Mail. ProQuest 382724423. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The review notes: "So I watched The Property Shop , which is the vehicle for the allegedly original and startling Tatiana. Besides, the come-on from the PR machine and the existence of Tatiana raise an interesting question: What makes for a good TV personality? ... The Property Shop (HGTV, 8 p.m.) is all about Tatiana. The premise is that we watch as real-estate-agent-turned-broker Tatiana opens up her own agency and attempts to conquer the urban real-estate world in Montreal. ... Tatiana is all pep and vinegar, and charmingly certain that she is unique, a true star. In the first 60 seconds of the episode I saw, she makes the assertion about her hair and her boobs and coming to get you. ... Usually, with the sort of TV personalities who are part of the firmament that Tatiana wants to join, there's either a narrative about the personality or the personality is merely a bland facilitator who helps the narrative unfold."

    2. Gravenor, J D (2008-08-09). "Real estate meets reality TV; Montreal agent Tatiana Londono stars in her own HGTV series - a "docu-soap" chronicling her rise in the real-estate world". The Gazette. ProQuest 434694385.

      The article notes: "Canadians across the country are now getting to know Londono, too, because of her documentary-style television show, The Property Shop, which airs three times a week on HGTV. ... But it takes a lot of video footage to make a 13-part, fly-on-the-wall reality series. So production crews tailed Londono for more than a year. Occasionally the camera penetrated her personal spheres, like the sanctuary of Londono's bedroom and the hospital room where her husband laid deathly ill. ... No, she's not shy. In fact, Londono came up with the idea of a TV show documenting her ballsy scramble to the top of Montreal's real-estate heap, taking on the big national firms and exploring the drama of wheeling and dealing. ... Episodes of The Property Shop debuted last month on HGTV. Now, the producers hope to find a home with the format they've worked out."

    3. McDonough, Kevin (2009-01-08). "TV Guy: A 'Wake-Up Call' to help couples". Times Herald-Record. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "Set in Montreal, the Canadian series "The Property Shop" (10:30 p.m., HGTV) follows real estate agent-turned-broker Tatiana Londono as she multitasks furiously under a helmet of golden ringlets. In this episode, she raises her kids, rents and renovates a new office, studies for her brokerage exam and attempts to land a slightly shady new client and sell his ugly property to dubious investors. With its emphasis on the "flipping" market, this import seems as if it's at least a couple of years old. The whole point of "Property" is to follow Tatiana, a sexy and slightly frazzled woman with a great sense of style, a youthful entourage and a flirtatious business manner. "Property" may not break any new ground in the real estate genre, but it shows off the slightly exotic Tatiana to her best advantage."

    4. Newsome, Brad (2009-09-10). "Pay TV - Sunday, September 13". The Age. ProQuest 364293422. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The review notes: "Here's an even less sympathetic protagonist, Canadian real estate agent Tatiana Londono. Theoretically it might be possible to feel sympathy for a real estate agent in certain circumstances — they've just been run over by a bus, perhaps — but tonight Londono succeeds in looking both ways before crossing the road. Londono explains that she's been making seven figures selling houses at an estate agency in Montreal but has decided to go into business for herself. She's determined to complain every step of the way, too. The vacant offices she looks at are crummy, her new clients don't know what's good for them and she has even less time to spend with her kids. Buyers and sellers remain stoic as they endure Londono's aggressive badgering."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Property Shop to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: In addition to Cunard's sources, I also found significant coverage in the Montreal Gazette: "Real Estate Meets Reality TV" (August 9, 2008). There is enough here to demonstrate notability. (It should be noted that the correct title is "The Property Shop". When this discussion closes, the page should be moved.) Toughpigs (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I hate such tiny stubs, but as far as notability is concerned, sources provided above (and I found a few more via WPLIBRARY) are sufficient. SIG coverage from multiple major independent and reliable outlet exists. X (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural keep‎. No rationale for deletion present. (non-admin closure) BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Rohr[edit]

Nadine Rohr (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)

Couldn't find any reliable source on the subject. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC Shinadamina (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revaz Gigauri[edit]

Revaz Gigauri (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 should have at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage, excluding database sources.Does not pass WP:SPORTBASIC Shinadamina (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I have added the rationale now. Shinadamina (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two World Cups and a simple search is bringing up GNG passing sourcing such as this and there will likely be more offline. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep You can improve the article too. Orientls (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Complex/Rational 20:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Siddiqui (politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Never held any political office that makes them inherently notable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Takuro Okuyama[edit]

Takuro Okuyama (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)

Yet another really poorly sourced BLP on a footballer that only played 46 mins of football. Japanese Wikipedia has no decent sources. He is mentioned 3 times in this blog post and once in Reds Denk but this is far from enough for WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable insignificant footballer without decent sourcing. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 16:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kota Yanagisawa[edit]

Kota Yanagisawa (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 case to Yuki Toma and Kei Hirata, which were created by the same editor. The only half-decent source found is Livedoor, a blog post, which falls short of being WP:SIGCOV of Yanagisawa and, in any case, WP:SPORTBASIC and SIGCOV require multiple good sources for a pass. Japanese Wikipedia doesn't have any acceptable sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuhiro Tanaka (footballer)[edit]

Yasuhiro Tanaka (footballer) (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)

Unacceptable sourcing on a BLP for a footballer that played in 1 cup game then disappeared, although he was briefly on the books for Operário Ferroviário Esporte Clube. Searching in Japanese, I can only find Niigata University and J League, neither of which are significant. I couldn't find any coverage of his very brief spell in Brazil. I've had a look at Japanese Wikipedia but none of the sources there show WP:SIGCOV. Similar case to Yuki Toma and Kei Hirata, which were created by the same editor. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shotaro Dei[edit]

Shotaro Dei (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)

Unacceptable sourcing on a BLP for a footballer that played in one 2nd tier match and then disappeared to the amateur levels. Searching in Japanese, I can only find a couple of self-published blog posts like La Bola and LiveDoor, which are not considered to be WP:RS. I've had a look at Japanese Wikipedia but none of the sources there show WP:SIGCOV. Similar case to Yuki Toma and Kei Hirata, which were created by the same editor. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoji Yamada[edit]

Shoji Yamada (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)

Unacceptable sourcing on a BLP for a footballer that played in 2 cup games then disappeared. Searching in Japanese, I can only find coverage of the musician of the same name. I've had a look at Japanese Wikipedia but none of the sources there show WP:SIGCOV. Similar case to Yuki Toma and Kei Hirata, which were created by the same editor. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CuteDolphin712 in fairness, Japanese Wikipedia articles for footballers tend to be of a very high quality in my experience so it tends to be a good indicator on whether the en.wiki article is worth having. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 16:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio UTD[edit]

Radio UTD (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)

Notability issues and a number of references don't link to anywhere useful. Okmrman (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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! 16:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bogey Awards[edit]

Bogey Awards (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 award with virtually zero independent significant coverage beyond this brief piece on the website of the Golden Globes. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Google search can lead an editor to sources that might prove to be reliable but Google search results alone don't establish notability. There are a lot of subjects that people search for or write about that don't meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. Liz Read! Talk! 16:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habibullah Khan Swati II[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and a quick Google search doesn't yield anything either which can help meet WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Appears to be an WP:AUTOBIO with WP:NON-SIGCOV. Google search also doesn't provide anything substantial.Sameeerrr (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

  • But google search provides many pictures of him from different pages along with mention of well known Tribal chief and information about his father and grandfather from newspaper and many blogs have mention of his name as a Khan of Garhi Habibullah. Most importantly, He and his father are mentioned tribal Chief on Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's website. Hazarewal333 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was a SNOW keep‎. (non-admin closure) Aaron Liu (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blockout 2024[edit]

Blockout 2024 (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 relevant, random TikTok trend { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No actual reasoning for this article to be deleted has been given. Cortador (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ongoing trend/news event, but already documented by entertainment and non-entertainment websites. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pretty ridiculous to vote for the deletion of a massive protest movement that significantly impacted the social media presence of dozens of celebrities. Especially considering a political climate that refuses to acknowledge the protests as legitimate and actively contributes to censuring folks who participate. Should #MeToo have been considered a random twitter hashtag? <IP removed> 19:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. S5A-0043Talk 11:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it covers a relevant protest movement linked to a conflict that is redefining the whole international system. 185.120.125.4 (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable and reliably sourced. WC gudang inspirasi (Read! Talk!) 03:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Topic properly covered in the media. I would also suggest the nomination be withdrawn. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 16:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Osman Afrah[edit]

Ibrahim Osman Afrah (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)

Standard BEFORE seems to have found nothing about the guy? Definitely nothing suitable for a BLP, which their own works (as currently cited) are not. Not for the whole article anyway. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Somalia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Poetry. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone finds something in Somali or with a different spelling of his name that I've missed. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE... this looks like an autobiography to me, because there is nothing in any of the cited sources that confirms the subject's background, birth date, or height, and the photos are either taken from the subject's social media or the article creator claims them as his own work. Richard3120 (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Daystar Television Network stations. Liz Read! Talk! 16:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WXNY-LD[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; just two sources; could merge into List of Daystar Television Network stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Jean Patrick[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brenda Jean Patrick (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)

(Renomination: the discussion from 2010 closed as "no consensus.") I don't believe that Brenda Jean Patrick fulfills the notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. She is (was? I think I found an obituary) an educational consultant who touted the idea of "customer care" in school districts. Most of the information I can find about her consultant work is in the form of press releases in local papers when she held workshops for a district. I don't see independent coverage outside of her PR. Joyous! Noise! 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Greek wars[edit]

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

The article is a mess; it consists largely of unattributed copy-pastes from other articles, and purports to present a topic, the 'Indo-Greek wars', that is in reality a sequence of isolated and unrelated conflicts between different polities at different times. Alexander's campaigns take up half the article, but the other conflicts, which took place decades or centuries later, are dealt with far too briefly, and no attempt is made to weave all of this into a coherent narrative (which in itself is evidence this is an artificial topic). THe very name itself is scarcely used anywhere (cf. Gbooks). Constantine ✍ 11:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Problematic editor who created a number of very poorly written articles. Qcne (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On its face, it appears to both duplicate other article content and be an inappropriate synthesis. And, on the offchance it is notable and just not written about in English language sources, WP:TNT GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' - Not in line with Wikipedia's standards and policies.Sameeerrr (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOV, this article contains a biased perspective, focusing solely on Indian victories while neglecting Greek achievements. The article's content consists of copied material from various unrelated articles, defying Wikipedia's standards against Original Research WP:OR and Synthesis Content WP:SYNTH.Based Kashmiri (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poor page with implication of a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by the source. The creator of the page inserted opinion in a circular bit of logic. RangersRus (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sure is Indo and Greek, but scarcely a combined thing. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekene Emigo[edit]

Ekene Emigo (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)

Another creation by Zombie with a lot of dubious info; I can find nothing to verify the move to Leicester City nor the 1 cap for Nigeria. This hasn't always been unsourced. It's previously had the unreliable WP:TRANSFERMARKT as well as a link to National Football Teams, although the profile linked has no confirmation of his cap or even his DOB. He definitely existed because I found trivial mentions in Modern Ghana and RSSSF but none of this is even close to WP:SIGCOV. This article has existed for 16 years without a decent source so, if we can't find one, it needs deleting. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatius Ekwunife[edit]

Ignatius Ekwunife (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)

Another poorly sourced BLP by a banned editor, see User talk:Zombie433 for more examples of these. The only sources found are All Africa 1, a paywalled source that says Ugochukwu Nwankwo, Diri Otimoti and Ebitimi Agogo will run the midfield and Teddy Lucky, Ignatius Ekwunife and Amakiri George in the fore. and All Africa 2, which says The goal disorganised Sharks the more and three bookings to Ignatius Ekwunife, Festus Umasah and Chidiekeke Okefe in a spate of five minutes

These are both passing mentions in a match report and do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. I am unable to verify anything else from this stub and, even if I could, notability is still a big issue. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olatunji Adeola[edit]

Olatunji Adeola (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)

One of many dubious BLPs created by the same permanently banned user, see User talk:Zombie433 for many other examples. I have searched all combinations of Olatunde/Olatunji Adeola Waidi, including changing the name order, and found no useful coverage. All I can find is the same Sky Sports article already used. It's a passing mention so does not comply with WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WLAS-LP (Florida)[edit]

WLAS-LP (Florida) (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)

Zero secondary sources, lacking in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, United States of America, and Florida. AusLondonder (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Don't see any WP:SIGCOV present for this radio station. The disambiguation here makes a redirect impractical. Let'srun (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Another remnant of the non-GNG-based looser inclusion standards in this topic area in 2011, which at times seemed to be based more on existence (which is neither notability nor proof of same) than true notability, much less any verifiable information about anything beyond the license itself. Sourcing solely to FCC records and database entries (one of which is not even about this station…) is no longer considered acceptable — if there's no significant coverage, there should be no article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijit Das Bobby[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Subject was never elected to any political office that can make them inherently notable, and article relies majorly on sources that do not satisfy SIGCOV and INDEPENDENT, hence, fails GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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 11:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Society Sons of the American Colonists[edit]

National Society Sons of the American Colonists (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)

Could not find any independent, reliable sources covering this group. Toadspike (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing comes up in a WP:BEFORE search and article cites only the subject's own sources. Notability is not WP:INHERITED from National Society Daughters of the American Colonists. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth Dodecaphonics[edit]

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

No significant coverage found. Toadspike (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seekda[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources about this niche software company in the article, and I am seeing nothing in a search that is not promotional. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 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 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Bin, Xu; Sen, Luo; Sun, Kewu (2012). "Towards Multimodal Query in Web Service Search". 2012 IEEE 19th International Conference on Web Services. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICWS.2012.42. ISBN 978-1-4673-2131-0.

      The article note: "To the best of our knowledge, Seekda is the most comprehensive search engine for Web Service nowadays. However, Seekda only provides keyword search, which makes its search quality far from satisfactory. For example, assume that a developer wants to search a Web service with the function of sending email. If he types “send email” in Seekda, the first matched Web service is a Short Message Service (SMS). If he inputs “email” in Seekda, the first Web service is for email validation."

      The article notes: "Seekda is currently the most comprehensive global search engine for Web services. However, Seekda only offers keyword search which leads to low accuracy. Because keyword search could not capture the users’ search need well."

    2. Fensel, Dieter; Facca, Federico Michele; Simperl, Elena; Toma, Ioan (2011). "Seekda: The Business Point of View". Semantic Web Services. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19193-0_14. ISBN 978-3-642-19192-3.

      The book notes: "The mission of seekda is to ease the search, interoperability and bundling of services and thus achieve a true Web of services. seekda provides a dedicated Web services search engine, featuring monitoring and invocation facilities. ... The crawler developed at seekda detects services over the Web and classifies them in an internal ontology that is maintained by seekda. Discovered services can then be annotated with semantic descriptions. The aim is to detect as many public services as possible. To achieve this goal, the crawler is focused on both WSDLbased and RESTful services. The search is not just restricted to pure technical service descriptions but also encompasses information surrounding the service, for example, HTML documents that talk about the services. This information will help in a two-fold way: to discover the actual service (and to automatically classify it) and to further annotate the service (given that the extra information about the service is available). The semantic information is then used by the front-end search engine that seekda also develops and provides to users (more in Sect. 14.2.2)."

    3. Mirmotalebi, Rozita; Ding, Chen; Chi, Chi-Hung (2012). "Modeling User's Non-functional Preferences for Personalized Service Ranking". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 7636. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34321-6_24. ISBN 978-3-642-34320-9.

      The article notes: "Seekda is a publicly available web service search engine. It contains a good number of web services published online. It also maintains useful information of each service, such as its origin country, the provider information, a link to its WSDL file, tags, its availability, a chart of its response time in the past, a user rating, its level of documentation, etc. For most of the non-functional properties we consider in our system, we could find their values from either Seekda or the original hosting sites, except the provider popularity, the service popularity and the service cost. In the experiment, we excluded them from the similarity calculation. ... There were 7739 providers and 28606 services stored in Seekda (as of August 2, 2011). ... After removing the services with expired URLs, we finally got 1208 services from 537 providers, and each provider contains at least one service. Since Seekda started crawling and monitoring web services from 2006, the oldest service in our dataset was published in 2006."

    4. Li, Deyi; Zhang, Haisu; Liu, Yuchao; Chen, Guishen (2010). "On Foundations of Services Interoperation in Cloud Computing". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: 9. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14553-7_3. ISBN 978-3-642-14552-0.

      The article notes: "Seekda’s Web Services portal provides a search platform for public direct access to web services, which can enable users to find web services based on a catalogue of more than 28,000 service descriptions. Services listed at seekda cover a wide range of functionality in map, weather, sports, shopping and entertainment etc., and can be integrated into more capacious services. At present seekda verifies if a service is up once a day, and reports a measurement of availability by means of the frequency whether the server correctly implements the SOAP protocol daily. "

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Seekda to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not convinced that this set of mentions meets WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 12:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite Cunard's review of sources, this is a company and therefore needs to meet WP:NCORP. References showing notability must adhere to WP:ORGCRIT and nothing I can find does so. Even GNews only has 3 hits and GSearch shows nothing more than the typical press release, blogs, and CrunchBase type references. If the company was worthy of notice, we would see significant press coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant coverage need not come from the press – academic sources are a perfectly legitimate means of establishing notability. – Teratix ₵ 11:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Analysis of the first two sources:
    1. Bin, Sen & Sun 2012's abstract says, "Compared with the alternative system Seekda, it is able to obtain much higher search accuracy with keyword query (with a match rate of 2-4 times higher than that of Seekda). The custom search can achieve 100% top-3 match rate, while Seekda fails in most cases using keywords." That a conference paper for IEEE did research on Seekda strongly contributes to notability. The word "Seekda" is used 20 times in the paper.
    2. Fensel et al. 2011 has a chapter titled "Seekda: The Business Point of View". The chapter's abstract says, "Industry is slowly picking up on the use of semantic technologies within their systems. In this chapter, we describe how these technologies are employed by seekda, a company focused on Web services." That there is an entire chapter about Seekda in a Springer Berlin book strongly establishes notability. Seekda is mentioned 38 times in the chapter.
    It is inaccurate to call these sources merely a "set of mentions". These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage as they provide very detailed coverage about Seekda. These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources because they are functionally independent and intellectually independent. These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience because they are international publications covering this Austrian company. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think by your own analysis of the first source it is a mention. The paper is not about Seekda. "Compared with the alternative system......" indicates it is simply being compared to the main topic of the paper and not about Seekda itself. And the fact the name is used 20 times also has no bearing. Curious if you were able to access the entire paper or just the abstract? --CNMall41 (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have full access to all of the sources I listed here. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria says:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals.

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". Covering "the topic directly and in detail" (which these sources do) is sufficient to meet the notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been helpful to note when first presenting the sources that the discussion of the subject went beyond the content quoted. I am more on the fence with that information. It would also be nice to see some of this added to the article. BD2412 T 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 (talk · contribs), I usually do not note that because the full text is usually available to all editors. The full text is not available to all editors for any of these sources, so I will take that feedback into consideration for these kinds of sources. I am hesitant to rewrite an article at AfD as it would be a time waste if the article was still deleted. I've rewritten the article here, however, in the hope that it demonstrates the subject is notable and moves you off the fence in supporting retention. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Greenish Pickle!: What do you think? BD2412 T 15:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here are two additional sources about the subject:
    1. Simperl, Elena; Cuel, Roberta; Stein, Martin (2013). "Case Study: Building a Community of Practice Around Web Service Management and Annotation". Incentive-Centric Semantic Web Application Engineering. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-79441-4_4. ISBN 978-3-031-79440-7.

      The book notes: "In this scenario, seekda’s mission is to facilitate on-demand use of services over the Web. As a first step seekda is operating a search engine providing access to publicly available Web APIs. Seekda will simplify purchases across different providers and unify the use of services in bundles. Therefore, the emerging seekda portal can be a good candidate for such an independent Web API marketplace aiming to simplify purchases and transactions across different providers and to unify the usage of services regardless of their origin.

      "... Seekda’s products aim at creating a more transparent and accessible Web API market. The company has developed automatic means to identify Web APIs (on the World Wide Web) and has devised algorithms to enable users to find appropriate APIs for a given task efficiently. By pre-filtering the Web content and indexing Web API specific features, seekda manages the largest set of Web APIs known and make comparison easier through a unified presentation.

      "As depicted in 4.1, the seekda marketplace will facilitate the trade of Web API usage in a one-stop-shopping manner—dramatically reducing procurement costs. The current market is mostly based on atomic service offerings, when completely integrated solutions are clearly needed. Seekda will address this demand by facilitating the creation of service bundles. Interoperability issues between different providers will be handled by the marketplace, which allows for a seamless switching between providers and thus reduces integration costs for the customers of seekda."

    2. Petrie, Charles (2009-11-06). "Practical Web Services". IEEE Internet Computing. Vol. 13, no. 6. doi:10.1109/MIC.2009.135.

      The article notes: "To be really useful, an open Web service would be able to be discovered easily by some easy-to-use search engine, perhaps Seekda (http://seekda.com). Now, this is potentially a good tool. Try, for example, searching for “hotel reservation.” You get a list of WSDL services. Click on one and you get the list of operations of the service. Click on one of those, and it asks you to fill in the strings that will compose the message and be sent to the service. This is almost practical. Except you don’t have a clue what you’re being asked to enter. Click, for example, on the “ReservationsService,” which is one of the services returned in the search. Oh, wait, there’s no description yet. Well, just pick the first one in the results list. Its description is “seems to be an internal service.” And if you click on the “Use Now” link, you have no idea what the operations do, individually or together. If you click on one of them, you’re asked to enter strings that correspond to fields that clearly want you to enter some secret codes. Even the previous “ReservationService” has operations with names like “GetRGInfo” with a single message field called “nRGID.” Seekda is possibly the best product of this kind out there. But you see the problem, don’t you?"

    Cunard (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but I still do not agree. You are pointing to GNG for some of your contention and NCORP for others. Under GNG, "There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". Covering "the topic directly and in detail" (which these sources do) is sufficient to meet the notability guideline." However, under NCORP, there IS a requirement. It is spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT and unfortunately I do not see these meeting that criteria. It likely had a great product for a brief period of time but "presumed" notable and actual notable are not the same. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#How to apply the criteria says:

Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability:

  1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
  2. Be completely independent of the article subject.
  3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
  4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.
These sources "addres[s] the subject of the article directly and in depth". The guideline does not say Seekda must be "the main topic of the source material".

Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very family with what the guideline says. I feel your definition of what constitutes WP:CORPDEPTH is not consistent with how others apply it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: You said:
Under GNG, "There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". [...] However, under NCORP, there IS a requirement. It is spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT
I am not seeing anything in ORGCRIT, or NCORP more broadly, that requires a prospective source to cover a company as "the main topic of the source material", as opposed to "directly and in depth". Please point me to the specific text you believe sets this requirement. – Teratix ₵ 11:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bad choice of words on my part. I will admit that as it does not literally say that. I am going off what it says here "Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself)" - I take that (and it has been fairly consistent in NCORP AfD discussions) to mean the company must be the main topic.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But your own quotation specifies an exception if the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself – NCORP, far from requiring something must be "the main topic" of the article in question, explicitly notes the opposite: an article with a different main topic still demonstrates notability if it devotes "significant attention" to the topic under scrutiny. – Teratix ₵ 04:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get new opinions of the rewritten article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The article is very well-written and makes the best possible use of what sources there are. But the only real source is the book in the Bibliography. The sources Cunard provided are not about the company at all; they're just using a Seekda product as an example in studies of computing problems. This would be like having the article on General Motors sourced mostly to the Consumer Reports reviews of the Chevy Bolt. It isn't in-depth coverage of the company, so WP:NCORP is failed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be like having the article on General Motors sourced mostly to the Consumer Reports reviews of the Chevy Bolt. Sure, but in this scenario the reviews would demonstrate the Chevy Bolt is notable, no? Wouldn't this suggest the article needs to be rewritten to be about the Chevy Bolt rather than deleted altogether? – Teratix ₵ 11:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just need to tweak the lead to focus on "Seekda" the search engine service, rather than "Seekda" the company. The sources Cunard provides convincingly demonstrate notability. – Teratix ₵ 11:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is assuming the software is notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's been more than adequately demonstrated by the sources. – Teratix ₵ 04:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus in sight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Thank you for the insightful analysis, Teratix (talk · contribs)! As you've suggested, I've modified the lead to focus on on "Seekda" the search engine service, rather than "Seekda" the company. Cunard (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #3: no accurate deletion rationale has been provided‎. (non-admin closure) Remsense诉 08:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early life of Mao Zedong[edit]

Early life of Mao Zedong (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)

Except for Mao Zedong, no other celebrity has his early life clearly written in the main article and has to open a separate article Coddlebean (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Coddlebean (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment can you please clarify the deletion rationale? There are other articles that detail early lives of historical people. Like Stalin, Cleopatra, Samuel Johnson, and Joseph Smith Oblivy (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- No valid deletion criterion provided, which is no surprise as clearly none applies. Subject is clearly notable. Mao's stature would probably support separate articles for each year of his adult life. Central and Adams (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No valid deletion rationale. Even just Category:Early lives by heads of government (of which the article under discussion is a member) holds 43 articles across all subcats; this one isn't special. Folly Mox (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. SK1, no intelligible deletion rationale. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: SK1, no valid rationale for deletion. Not only is this a valid page split, it also outright passes WP:GNG as Mao's early life is very well covered. Curbon7 (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as no valid deletion rationale. I tried to give the nominator a chance to explain, and I'd reconsider my vote if that opportunity is taken up. Oblivy (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userify‎. There was agreement that the article should be removed from mainspace, but consensus formed around making selections from the article available to Teratix (talk · contribs) for incorporation into his analytics article. I have moved the article to User:Teratix/AFL_Tables, please drop a line on my talk page when you wish it to be deleted. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Tables[edit]

AFL Tables (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 WP:WEBCRIT. A search for "AFL Tables" will show up thousands of webpages which reference statistics from this online database, but no references which actually give significant coverage about the database as a subject, which is the benchmark which must be met under WEBCRIT. Google searching "paul jeffs afl tables" is a better search term to look for SIGCOV about the database (since any genuine SIGCOV would include Jeffs' name as the site's creator), and the best that shows up a few appreciative one-liner posts in public forums and on other stats databases - nothing which meets GNG's requirements of significance and independence. I don't see any valid alternative to deletion; there's no merge or redirect target that makes sense, and issue of lack of references can't reasonably be solved by draftifying. Aspirex (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[...] there are also a few publicly curated databases, the best of which is the brilliant AFL Tables maintained by Paul Jeffs. Jeffs' database includes, among other information, results from every AFL/VFL match since 1897, detailed player statistics dating back to 1965, and round-by-round Brownlow voting records from 1984 onwards. "It's a nice dataset, I can say that," said Dr Lenten. "It gives me good bang for my buck because it's possible to look at a number of problems."
(Aside: Footballistics; amazing book, excellent source of information on modern Australian football. Doesn't have a fucking index. I had to skim through all 362 pages to find that paragraph the first time.)
As to what should happen to the article... I agree it probably doesn't meet the GNG. That paragraph's not enough. I also agree there's no mainspace target for redirection or a merger. But I think an article on Australian rules football analytics ("statistics"? I'm still undecided) would be an obvious place to briefly discuss AFL Tables. So, uh, this may be a bit unorthodox, but how would we feel about merging it to my draft? I would be happy to move it into draftspace proper if Gibbsyspin preferred. – Teratix ₵ 12:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would work. It would need to be its own fairly standalone subsection within the analytics article, to ensure that the thousands of wikilinks which may be put in article reflists are directed somewhere specific rather than to a general analytics page. As long as that's achievable, I think that's a valid option. Aspirex (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a view to creating a redirect to the statistics article once Teratix has moved their draft to mainspace (or it is otherwise created). It is regrettable that such an important RS doesn't meet GNG or WEBCRIT but there is simply no SIGCOV. Aspirex - I think a Template:Anchor would do the trick. And there are ~12,000 transclusions of Template:AFL Tables that could conceivably link there!
Triptothecottage (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify so that Teratix is able to access the material and merge it into his draft. TarnishedPathtalk 08:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per TarnishedPath. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Ultraman Taiga characters. Owen× ☎ 15:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraman Tregear[edit]

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

Most of it were just primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AfD'ing it to end the edit war. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reject: you have no reason to delete this article!! Harimua Thailand (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:1566:1FAC:A05C:22B9 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Harimua Thailand: We need coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (in this case, Ultraman) to have an article. This article has none of that, and should therefore be deleted. Characters as popular as King Dedede have been redirected for this reason. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except King Dedede is a different topic entirely and have some decent sources unlike this one (Full of primary sources).The Worst part is, there are other 3 Ultraman articles that are all sourced as primary. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 00:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, I was using him as an example of how notability is not popularity or being a well-liked character. The fact that he is in a better position than this character helps my point. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is literally no reception in reliable sources either in this article or on the web, so it does not meet GNG. If there is a good redirect target available, redirect it there. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reject: Redirect is not allowed and the article must be keep!! Harimua Thailand (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:6938:8399:70DC:2892 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You made the article, you have serious bias 48JCLTalk 00:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Harimua Thailand: You can only make 1 bolded vote per AFD. If you want to make another one, you must strike the old one. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I am fine with a redirect. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are people allowed to vote twice? Cooper (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I was about to say redirect but if you search by the Japanese name, ウルトラマントレギア, a lot more sourcing comes up. Cooper (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Entry on Japanese Wikipedia. Cooper (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its a primary source. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two quick searches brought me these two. Cooper (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unreliable. See WP:RS, if there's a reliable source then it helps GNG. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you know it's unreliable? Just because you aren't familiar with a website doesn't make it unreliable. I'm not familiar with those website either, but both of those websites are used dozens to hundreds of times on Wikipedia. And they look fine to me. Cooper (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are not unreliable, but a situational source. Then it couldn't even help WP:GNG. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG says that reliable "sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." Let's not discriminate Japanese media. Cooper (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not even proven as a reliable source. But, lets drop this and move on since we have different perspective. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like you're just trying to deny that any source is valid, for whatever reason occurs to you at the moment. I don't think there is such a thing as a "situational source". Toughpigs (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because its just a reveal source. For the character it says only about this "Among the many Ultraman, Ultraman Taro is the one for whom I feel a powerful, powerful affinity" thats it. But, I don't see any point of making this discussion much longer. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, what is a "reveal source"? Cooper (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. I meant that the source is a Character reveal only. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Situational sources have been a thing on the site for a long time. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing this? Thing is, "situational" seems to mean there can be red flags in some sources that would normally be reliable, like if they were writing about something out of the usual scope. I don't think that applies here. Coop (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Situational is generally accepted to mean "use with caution" and typically means that it is unacceptable in some areas and fine in others. Some situational sources have been marked as fine for proving facts but unacceptable for proving notability. This does not apply to all situational sources, but keep in mind that you need to be careful with that kind of source. No comment on the individual links at this time since I don't speak Japanese. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How do we tell if a source is situational though? It felt like Greenish Pickle! was just casting their own opinion. Coop (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to cast votes, but if the consensus brings to delete, I would like to suggest an alternative by redirecting Ultraman Tregear to List of Ultraman Taiga characters. I can compress and salvage whatever remains from this page to their appropriate articles. Zero stylinx (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do editors think of the suggestion of redirection? Please remember not to bludgeon an AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of Ultraman Taiga characters as a fair alternative to deletion. Jontesta (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The general notability guideline can be met with non-English sources and with sources available in print rather than in digital. Coverage of the character appears in volumes 164, 171, and 172 of Uchusen, a long-running Japanese periodical about media and tokusatsu. There is also coverage in volumes 256, 265, and 273 of Figya Kingu (Figure King), a Japanese periodical about figurines and toys. Add to this the Tokusatsu Network coverage in English that Cooper found further up in the discussion.
    If there is a dispute about sourcing or content in the article, that's something to resolve through means other than AfD. Consider reporting editors to WP:AN/EW rather than AfD'ing it to end the edit war. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus after the previous two.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Redirect to List of Ultraman Taiga characters: Fails GNG. Sources show the subject exists, they do not have WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth from neutral non-promotional reliable sources addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE including a search for ウルトラマントレギア found primary sources, name mentions, nothing meeting SIGCOV, from independent reliable sources. Keep votes are depending on name mentions and primary sources neither of which show notability.  // Timothy :: talk  17:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Ultraman Taiga characters or similar target. There is insufficient sourcing here, and the Tokusatsu Network does not appear to me to be a reliable source (see [10]). However, redirection is an entirely appropriate, and indeed, preferred alternative to deletion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silesia national football team[edit]

Silesia national football team (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)

Silesia is not a country, so it cannot be this. Rename it--but to what? There's no Frisian national football team or Walloon national football team either. Plus, the article is little more than a directory and a list of matches. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Czech Republic, Germany, and Poland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, should certainly be trimmed / improved / sourced, whole sections could go, but it seems a bit unfair to single out this team, as it is only one of a long list here, and while I realise it's not a real guide to notability, the fact that it has 9 language versions at least show there's some passing interest beyond its homeland and has some historical significance. It's pretty niche stuff, but a lot of others in that list are too and it may be more logical to start from the most obscure and work up, don't want to insult anyone's region but Seborga national football team looks an example of one with far less merit for inclusion than Silesia.
The name is a topic that's come up previously, particularly relating to the more prominent non-nations like Catalonia. Personally I would have no problem with it being something like 'representative football team' for all of these, but it's been argued that there are quite a few non-sovereign FIFA teams so the word 'national' is really just used to differentiate them from clubs and does not necessarily infer a certain status on the territory in question.
Only other thing is, do Wallonia and Frisia have any sort of combined team that plays matches? That's not meant to be a 'well do they???' question, I'm genuinely not sure, but I couldn't see one on French or Dutch wiki where one might expect to find something snuck away. If they have never had such a team, it's not really fair to compare their non-presence to articles for teams that have demonstrably played matches, even if really long ago and/or at a very low level. Crowsus (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep could be improved, but the topic is notable - can easily tell by looking at German and Polish language articles, though the Polish one is under sourced by English standards. SportingFlyer T·C 06:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per above. Although it has notp played many matches it is a represnetative team that is a topic of interest. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, per SportingFlyer and several others. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election[edit]

2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly 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)

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to 2027 when we have actual sources discussing the election. Soni (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Anyone is free to create a redirect if they see it fit. ✗plicit 11:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Goa Legislative Assembly election[edit]

2027 Goa Legislative Assembly 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)

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to 2027 when we have actual sources discussing the election.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries for a similar recent AFD Soni (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now noticed a series of articles under the Template:Next Indian elections. I was not aware of the remaining articles, and the standard to call them "Next". I'm not now unsure if there's a broader consensus at play; if not, one should be established. Either will make deleting all early "Next articles" easier, or we could add talk page notes to not nominate any of them for deletion. Soni (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the template also got tagged for deletion separately, here's all the next election articles from the template; these may need revisiting if this AFD closes as Delete - Next Assam Legislative Assembly election, Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election, Next Manipur Legislative Assembly election, Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election
The articles this probably does not affect are -
Next Bihar Legislative Assembly election and Next Delhi Legislative Assembly election (probably in 2025), Next Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election (probably in 2026). All of them already have RS discussing them Soni (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 03:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of constituencies of Gujarat[edit]

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

There is no specific list for the parliamentary constituencies in Gujarat, only the list for the legislative assembly constituencies in Gujarat exists. Thus disambiguation page is not needed. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 04:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a valid disambiguation page. The list of parliamentary constituencies in Gujarat is a section within a separate page, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that List of constituencies of Gujarat isn’t a term that could be used to refer to that sub-list. As far as I can tell, this phrase is one that can be used to refer to both lists, and this is therefore a valid dab page - per WP:D2D, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which [this]…phrase might be expected to lead. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 09:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's definitely a helpful page that very well distinguishes the two pages from each other and allows the user to choose which page to select. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Security Shield[edit]

Security Shield (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)

Run-of-the-mill malware with no evidence of notability. PROD previously contested by the now-banned Neelix with "try Google News search" - I did, and I found either nothing or unrelated topics * Pppery * it has begun... 14:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2013-02 ✗ PROD ← 2013-02 ✗ PROD ← 2012-02 ✗ G10 ← 2011-01 ✗ A7
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as it's been PROD'd. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only information found was user-generated content; other hits were irrelevant (e.g. Spectrum's security service, which goes by the same name). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There seem to be some newer software packages that use this name, but there is nothing about this particular incarnation. I can't see anything we'd use, even what's now used for sourcing are mentions only. Oaktree b (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Defender[edit]

Ultimate Defender (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)

Run-of-the-mill malware with no evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 15:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2007-01 ✗ PROD
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I only see how-to remove guides and forum posts on goods. Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG in any shape or form. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HijackThis[edit]

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

Reliant entirely on primary sources. No evidence of notability. Previous AfD was kept due to people sharing their own testimonials of how it helped them, which is just not how notability works. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2006-11 (closed as ✓ Keep)
Related discussions: 2010-08 Merijn Bellekom (closed as redirect to HijackThis) ← 2006-12 Wssecure (closed as ✗ delete) ← 2005-07 Help2Go Detective (closed as MERGE and REDIRECT)
Logs: 2005-03 ✗ deleted ← 2005-03 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted
--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: has had clear historical significance and has been site of lots of reviews (passes WP:NSOFT criterion 3): [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per above. Software with historical notability. Svartner (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anumta Qureshi[edit]

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Lollywood newbie Anumta Qureshi lights up internet with new bold photos". 24 News HD. July 29, 2022.
  • Could you share some reputable sources that can confirm she held significant roles? I'd prefer not to rely on sources known for publishing sensational clickbait to garner traffic. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*::information Note: The creator of this BLP @BeauSuzanne is suspected UPE and a SPI is underway . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Enough, Saqib. More of this casting aspersions will result in a block. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I've retracted my comment. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Liz, I think Saqib did this in response to one of my comments, so I apologize for any role I had in provoking this. I've replied to him clarifying what my advice was (i.e. talk more generally, and don't single out editors). Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article are name mentions, promo, interviews, nothing meeting WP:SIRS, BEFORE found similar, nothing meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth meeting SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  13:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while I was here, I took a look at this article and the sourcing is... poor... to put it lightly. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mutta (tribe)[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show notability - I am aware this isn't my area though or language. Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 5 results show up if you search "Mutta people" on Google Books. [17] They do exist, but maybe they are a small community (I don't know) and not much has been written about them. However, I found 5 results on Google books alone. I haven't checked other venues like Scholar etc. If this is a keep, maybe changing it to Mutta people.Tamsier (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Mutta tribe definitely exists, i've been able to find some mentions of them on JSTOR and Google Scholar. Samoht27 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:27, 5 May 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! 07:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No sources on the page and a simple search did not show result on a Mutta tribe. I did find a Google book that talks about Muttadari System of Bhagatha tribe but that is different than the tribe on the page. Some more sources about Muttas in Australia. I did not find any source that would give an option to draftify the page for improvement. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't pass general notability guidelines. Based Kashmiri TALK 10:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 11:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vida Loka II[edit]

Vida Loka II (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 song, fails WP:NSONG. No in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. No other editors agree with the Delete analysis of the sources, that they are MILL covererage. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WGBS-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Virginia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some sourcing which I have added, all from the 1994–98 period. They were on local cable and got coverage from that. Once Cox dropped them, they really drop off in local coverage. I could go either way. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, The new sources seem to be enough to say that it at the very least was notable enough in it’s early history to justify keeping it, but due to it being from a very specific point, I’m have to keep it at semi-weak. Danubeball (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it, I decided to say that this station probably does have the coverage to continue being on Wikipedia. Danubeball (talk) 01:54, 10 May 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! 07:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The coverage from the 1990s added by Sammi meets the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG, nothing in the article or found in BEFORE shows anything meeting WP:SIRS. BEFORE found promo, ads, listings, nothing meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.
Source eval:
Comments Source
Technical data, fails WP:SIRS 1. "Facility Technical Data for WGBS-LD". Licensing and Management System. Federal Communications Commission.
Mill news about new programming, fails WP:SIRS 2. ^ Harville, Bobbie (November 10, 1994). "Inspirational TV: Genesis TV 7 brings new line of family shows". Daily Press. Newport News, Virginia. p. Y6. Retrieved April 22, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
Mill news about station changing signal 3. ^ Knemeyer, Nelda L. (April 27, 1995). "Genesis TV7 changing signal, adding new markets". Daily Press. Newport News, Virginia. p. N7. Retrieved April 22, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
Mill news about station struggles 4. ^ Jump up to:a b Nicholson, David (May 14, 1998). "Station strruggling [sic] to stay on cable lineup: Hampton owners confer with NAACP". Daily Press. Newport News, Virginia. p. C4. Retrieved April 22, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
Mill news about lineup change 5. ^ Nicholson, David (October 10, 1998). "WPEN burned by Cox decision to change lineup". Daily Press. Newport News, Virginia. p. D1. Retrieved April 22, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
FCC database record 6. ^ "Transfers #170659". Licensing and Management System. Federal Communications Commission. November 22, 2021.
Database record, fails WP:SIRS 7. ^ RabbitEars TV Query for WGBS
 // Timothy :: talk  18:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I understand that the article may well never grow much beyond where it is now, but I do think that sources 3-5 are sufficient squeak by on significant coverage, which I think was the only issue here. I disagree that these are promo/ad pieces; they read as normal coverage of a regional station to me. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I'm sorry but we need policy-based reasons to consider when deciding whether to Keep or Delete an article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K. K. Kabobo[edit]

K. K. Kabobo (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:MUSICBIO or WP:ANYBIO. The only reason this musician got coverage from the media (both RS and non-RS) is because of his death, which falls between WP:BLP1E (recently died) or WP:BIO1E. It’s all about his death and nothing else. Nothing to establish notability on this one. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly keep this article.The reason is because this person was very notable when he was living, its unfortunate that little information has been written about him in the internet era, but he is really notable in Ghana, his death is not the reason why we have much publication about him, but rather it's his contributions he made to the Ghanaian music industry,kindly keep the article as we continue to make improvement to the article.08:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Jwale2 (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. This was another article hastily created postmortem without seeing if subject even passed notability standards. While the editor voting keep above says "as we continue to make improvements to the article", they haven't edited it since the end of March. There's still virtually no content with nothing about his career and just an unsourced list of songs. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 08:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, couldn't a good source per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 03:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bader Pretorius[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing enough sustained coverage to justify GNG, including in the links above. JoelleJay (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 5 May 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! 07:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I am satisfied the subject meets SPORTSPERSON with at least one article which directly details the subject (Rugbyfan22's news24.com source). The rest, while all routine sports business coverage (rosters, games), supports notability. This is WAAY more sourcing than most sportspeople I come across in these processes. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of IT Training[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No significant coverage in reliable sources could be found either under the name "Institute of IT Training" or its apparent new name "Learning & Performance Institute". I know it's not relevant to notability, but the article reads like an advertisement and is borderline WP:G11 despite having 63 revisions over 14 years. Mz7 (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A09|(talk) 10:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sourcing is insufficient. Reads like an ad article. Cortador (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Revolutionary Government of the Armed Forces of Peru. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ENAPU[edit]

ENAPU (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Article on a small company formed in 1970 with just "it exists" type info. North8000 (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, I am currently unable to review this nomination individually, but in the event that the deadline passes before I am able to do so, I would like to request that the page be redirected to Revolutionary Government of the Armed Forces of Peru as a section which includes enough coverage of this and similar entities can be created. AlejandroFC (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The best I can find are company listings and PR items on this site [18], none of which help notability. I don't find coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sourcing in the Spanish wiki article is a government website and a history of marine transport in Peru, but that's not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Metropolitano (Lima). Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jirón de la Unión (Metropolitano)[edit]

Jirón de la Unión (Metropolitano) (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 bus stop is not notable. The sources only give passing coverage at best. Should be redirected to Metropolitano (Lima). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While this is certainly not a policy-based reason to delete, just take a look at the photo of the stop in the infobox--it should be obvious that this is not a notable stop in and of itself. No real sources to be found, and the eswiki article doesn't provide any helpful sources, either. The street itself, however, does appear to be notable (the street is what's covered in most of the sources if you do a search), and that could also be a possible redirect/(small) merge target. Bestagon ⬡ 01:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no objection to a redirect per OP. Bestagon ⬡ 10:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. This has already gotten relisted twice to generate more discussion and clear consensus. No discussion has been generated. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Bell (figure skater)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; ineligible for PROD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AHRC New York City[edit]

AHRC New York City (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:NORG and WP:GNG. No independent sources found in brief WP:BEFORE search. Daask (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:SIGCOV. Google scholar yields a number of scholarly sources that are paywalled. In particular, there's a book "State Association for Retarded Children and New York State Government" which is not available online. Archive.org also has a lot of hits but many of them are unavailable for borrowing. I was able to find at least two multi-paragraph treatments of the article subject (plus the Autism one which is brief). It gets a lot of mentions on archive - there's probably more significant coverage out there.
Oblivy (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have to agree per se especially with this source. Its true that non-profit corps doesn't usually get notable except with PR, etc. (some of them I mean). However, this came from a origin, a history and even if it is one boo that is verifiable, let the article be kept for further improvements. The matter is that WP:NEXIST. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge window[edit]

Merge window (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)

Essentially a WP:DICDEF that has been insufficiently sourced for over 8 years, and the only "source" provided is a forum post. If this concept is at all notable, then it can just be a one-sentence mention in software development process. ZimZalaBim talk 14:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 11:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Stapelberg[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Three sentences here was the best I found. JTtheOG (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Since this title hasn't been used before, I find the case for SALTing it to be weak. However, I will keep the page on my watchlist, and act if need. Owen× ☎ 08:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kourage Beatz[edit]

Kourage Beatz (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)

First off, this is a hoax. It has been recreated by different accounts and most recently speedy deleted as Tochi Bright Clement by Vanderwaalforces. The sock case of this user is still ongoing here. This should be Deleted and Salt. There's no evidence of notability, the reliable sources listed never mentioned this subject except for the press release sources and user generated sources. @T.C.G. [talk] 05:17, 12 May 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 May 12. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 05:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per nomination, there's a bit of a backlog at SPI though. db-hoax, db-banned, db-bio, take your pick. Wikishovel (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a technical reason why we're discussing this, rather than simply speedying per G5 (etc.) and salting? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right! @T.C.G. [talk] 09:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & salt with extreme prejudice, obvs, by any means necessary speedy or otherwise. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: There is, by all means, no reason for this to be at AfD at all, lol. It should be a speedy delete and salt. The young man isn’t ready to give up on self-promo. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The single vendor chart (Anghami) that his songs have appeared on is considered a WP:BADCHART. The Top Naija Music Awards is not a credible award in my opinion.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet, it's all fabricated! @T.C.G. [talk] 16:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and Salt - Note that this article is not a hoax, which would be an article about someone who doesn't exist. This musician does exist but that's all he has accomplished for our purposes. All of his media "coverage" is at self-generated platforms, social media, and gullible web services that reprint promo announcements. Someday his relentless self-promotion may kick in somewhere else, but keep us out of it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doomsdayer520, ambiguously, hoaxes also mean spreading false information and that's what I meant. The article contains fabricated claims made by the user like winning an award and producing some notable individuals projects. @T.C.G. [talk] 15:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, a good example is the Mars hoax, false information deliberately spread about something quite real. But I'm glad an AFD was created, thinking about it: if it's not speedied, we'll be able to tag future posts on Mr. Beatz-Lonky with db-multiple A7 and G4, rather than waiting for the SPI to get through the queue, or A7 with a hoax tag underneath so some admin has to go through all the references to determine that it's a load of rubbish about someone who exists and was nominated for a minor award. Wikishovel (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'Mr. Beatz-Lonky' lol. Right on point though. @T.C.G. [talk] 16:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per above. Puffs and PR WP:ROUTINE. Case of WP:MILL. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 03:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to 2012 New South Wales local elections. I found the Keep (="Oppose") views to be largely not based on P&G. Owen× ☎ 08:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2012 New South Wales mayoral elections[edit]

2012 New South Wales mayoral elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. I have not found significant coverage of this topic. Also fails WP:NOTDB; including all of the results for all of the mayoral elections would make this page massive. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Including each mayoral result (about 50 in total) would only make the page about the same size as Results of the 2022 Australian federal election in New South Wales or 2021 New South Wales mayoral elections, hardly "massive" by Wiki standards Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The third entry in WP:CSC provides a good metric for when a list gets into WP:NOTDB territory. That guideline states that "[s]hort, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" may be appropriate. However, such lists "should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K)". The list is already 12k of wikitext from 2 entries; 50 entries would far exceed that limit. voorts (talk/contributions) 06:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Auspol wiki has been notoriously poor at recording local elections despite a wealth of information about them being available, and recording all results would see the page be as large if not smaller than most other auspol results pages. NSW is also the largest state and its mayors are generally very notable & attract a lot of media attention. Goodebening (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The page clearly states how the mayoral elections are part of the local elections, they are notable enough to split the page for results It would be messier to embed these results in the "List of mayors of [LGA]" if they weren't on this page AmNowEurovision (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per consistency with other mayoral elections. I don't really see a point in merging this page but keeping all of the other mayoral ones separate. Additionally, this page is clearly large enough to warrant an article in its own right; merging would only make parsing through these articles more tedious. Loytra (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kenny (rugby league)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT as I am unable to find anything more than routine transactional announcements (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided: Large scope for expansion, but not enough coverage to warrant keeping article in current state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mn1548 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There are a few more articles on him signing for Salford - Total RL, BBC Sport - basically the same as the Sky Sports article, nothing of note. For Swinton there is very little - this one from March 2017 is as good as it gets: [19], after that just passing mentions or Thatto Heath match reports in the local paper. EdwardUK (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham, Inc.[edit]

Gotham, Inc. (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:CORP. Found only one independent source with in-depth coverage: https://archives.lib.duke.edu/catalog/gothaminc. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 5 May 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 04:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of notability. There's literally no content in the article, just a list. Sources are all press releases. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 07:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete really, no reliable secondary sources available. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 08:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fish market (Nouakchott)[edit]

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

The Nouakchott fish market, though often highlighted in travel guides covering the city, doesn't possess the sufficient secondary coverage, distinctive traits, or historical importance required for a Wikipedia article. The potential for substantial expansion beyond a rudimentary description is minimal. Mooonswimmer 04:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Hudson, Peter (1990). "The fish market". Travels in Mauritania. London: Virgin Books. ISBN 978-1-85227-127-5. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      Chapter 5 of the book begins on page 57 and is called "The fish market". The Google Snippet view of the book notes: "The fish market. I had been in the habit now and again of going to the fish market on the beach outside Nouakchott. I would take one of the shared taxis out there, small green Renaults seemingly held together more by the determination of their drivers than by anything else. ... Immediately a fierce wind would hit the side of the taxi, veering it across the road to just miss a pick-up truck returning from the fish market with twenty-five people standing hugged together in the back, which fortunately had been on a westward lurch itself at the same moment, and accordingly we did not crash. ..."

    2. Learoussy, Hana Youssef; Tfeil, H.; Dartige, Ali Yahya; Aarab, Lotfi (2020). "Empirical analysis of halieutic products marketing system in Nouakchott". Journal of Applied Science and Environmental Studies. Vol. 1, no. 1. Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University. pp. 37–52. ISSN 2605-7565. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      The article is also available here. The abstract notes: "This paper examines the marketing system for fish products at the Nouakchott fish market."

      The journal article notes: "The Nouakchott fish market is the largest market for halieutic products and one of the focal points for fishermen landing on the west coast of the capital. ... The choice of the Nouakchott fish market as a study area has been adopted one by its geographical position which is located near the center of the capital, and other by, the seat of the majority and the largest factories of processing of fishing products (wholesalers). ... There is at market level an external facility consisting of bench dedicated to retailers and people responsible for scaling fish, and a building (headquarters of semi-wholesalers) consisting of storage rooms products in large enough quantity. In the same zone, there are 12 wholesalers (private fish processing factories), these factories are private establishments that process, package and store halieutic products before exporting them. ... Table 1 describe the different species inventoried by the survey and marketed in Nouakchott fish market (during the investigationthe species names were presented in French, mostly in Wolof language because it’s most known between merchants cause of the dominance of this ethnic group between fisher)."

    3. "Une délégation de la Banque Mondiale se rend au marché aux poissons de Nouakchott" [A delegation from the World Bank went to the Nouakchott fish market] (in French). Mauritanian News Agency. 2020-02-24. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      The article notes: "Une délégation de la Banque Mondiale, présidée par Mme Deborah L. Wetzel, directrice de l’intégration régionale pour l’Afrique, le Moyen-Orient et l’Afrique du Nord, s’est rendue lundi, au marché aux poissons de Nouakchott, où elle s’est rendue dans les hangars d’étal des produits et à la plage de débarquement des pirogues de pêche traditionnelle. ... Dans le cadre du soutien des infrastructures du secteur de la pêche, une enceinte d’une longueur de 3,5 km et composée d’une grande entrée et de 5 voies de sortie a été réalisée autour de l’aire maritime du marché de poissons de Nouakchott. ... Le programme a également financé la consolidation de l’énergie électrique du marché, au moyen de l’installation de 5 stations et d’un réseau d’éclairage public, un réseau d’adduction en eau et la construction de 300 habitations pour les habitants résidant au marché et qui sont au nombre de 8.000 personnes."

      From Google Translate: "A delegation from the World Bank, chaired by Ms. Deborah L. Wetzel, director of regional integration for Africa, the Middle East and North Africa, visited the Nouakchott fish market on Monday, where she visited the product stalls and the landing beach for traditional fishing canoes. ... As part of supporting infrastructure for the fishing sector, a 3.5 km long enclosure consisting of a large entrance and 5 exit routes was built around the maritime area of the fish market. from Nouakchott. The program also financed the consolidation of the market's electrical energy, through the installation of 5 stations and a public lighting network, a water supply network and the construction of 300 homes for residents. residing at the market and numbering 8,000 people."

    4. "Mauritanie: la pénurie de poisson s'aggrave à Nouakchott" [Mauritania: fish shortage worsens in Nouakchott] (in French). Radio France Internationale. 2019-08-23. Archived from the original on 2020-02-22. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      The article notes: "Le principal marché aux poissons de Nouakchott, généralement très animé, est affecté par la baisse de ses activités de pêche. Des centaines de pirogues sont immobilisées sur le rivage depuis la Tabaski, qui a occasionné le départ massif des pécheurs mauritaniens et sénégalais, partis dans leurs familles pour la fête de l’Aïd el-Kébir. En nombre réduit, les pécheurs restés en activité ne peuvent pas assurer l’approvisionnement régulier du marché."

      From Google Translate: "The main fish market in Nouakchott, usually very lively, is affected by the decline in its fishing activities. Hundreds of canoes have been immobilized on the shore since Tabaski, which caused the massive departure of Mauritanian and Senegalese fishermen, who left to return to their families for the Eid el-Kébir celebration. In reduced numbers, the fishermen who remain active cannot ensure regular supplies to the market."

    5. Mills, Greg; Herbst, Jeffrey; Obasanjo, Olusegun; Davis, Dickie (2017). Making Africa Work: A Handbook for Economic Success. London: Hurst & Company. p. 246. ISBN 978-1-84904-873-6. Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Nouakchott's fish market at the Plage des Pêcheurs (the fishermen's beach) is a place of great energy. Teams of men, some in oilskins, most barefoot, heave colourfully decorated pirogues up the beach. Others store away outboard engines and pack handmade nets. Boys and girls sell drinks and food, and donkey carts lug bags and boxes of fish. The concrete tables in the marketplace are piled with fish, the floor littered with discarded heads and entrails, while traders seal cooler boxes for the refrigerated trucks parked outside."

    6. Pitcher, Gemma (2007) [1977]. Lonely Planet Africa (11 ed.). Footscray, Victoria: Lonely Planet. p. 424. ISBN 978-1-74104-482-9. Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Don't ever think of leaving the city without a visit to the extremely colourful fish market (Port de Pêche), about 5km from the centre. You'll see hundreds of teams of men dragging in heavy hand-knotted fishing nets on the beach and small boys hurrying back and forth with trays of fish. The best time is between 4pm and 6pm, when the fishing boats return - unforgettable!"

    7. Ham, Anthony (2013). West Africa (8 ed.). Footscray, Victoria: Lonely Planet. p. 239. ISBN 978-1-74179-797-8. Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Although it's not a highlight of the country, Nouakchott is sleepily idiosyncratic and you could do worse than spend an afternoon at the gloriously frantic fish market (one of the busiest in West Africa), ..."

    8. Phillips, Matt (2007). The Africa Book: A Journey Through Every Country in the Continent. Footscray, Victoria: Lonely Planet. pp. 50–51. ISBN 978-1-74104-602-1. Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes on page 50: "Nouakchott, the capital, is a discombobulating city that reflects the geographical duality of the country. Though it's only five kilometres inland from the Atlantic, it's more a city of the interior than of the coast — yet it boasts the most active fish market in West Africa."

      The book notes on page 51: "Nouakchott's fish market is the most colourful in West Africa."

    9. Ould Ahmed Salem, Zekeria (2009). "Les écueils du "partenariat": l'Union européenne et les accords de pêche avec l'Afrique" [The pitfalls of "partnership": The European Union and the fisheries agreements with Africa]. Politique Africaine N-116 : Gouverner la mer. Etats, pirates, sociétés [African Policy N-116: Governing the Sea. States, Pirates, Companies] (in French). Éditions Karthala. p. 40. ISBN 978-2-8111-0327-9. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      The book notes: "Du reste, certaines des réalisations visées ont déjà été accomplies: le marché aux poissons de Nouakchott, par exemple, a été construit par le Japon il y a plusieurs années et fonctionne normalement."

      From Google Translate: "Moreover, some of the targeted achievements have already been accomplished: the Nouakchott fish market, for example, was built by Japan several years ago and is functioning normally."

    10. Learoussy, Hana Youssef; Tfeil, Hasni; Dartige, Aly Yahya; Aarab, Lotfi (2022). "Histamine content in fresh and frozen pelagic species from the Mauritanian Atlantic Coast". Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture. doi:10.9755/ejfa.2022.v34.i8.2920. ProQuest 2731816705.

      The article notes: "Hundred and eight frozen and fresh pelagic of scombroid and non-scombroid species were collected from the Nouakchott fish market (Mauritanian Atlantic coast) in different period of 2020 and 2021. ... No significant variation in histamine levels between scombroid and non-scombroid fish species was obtained; thereby, the study showed that fish product commercialized at the Nouakchott fish market have a good quality and safe for human consumption. ... Samples were purchased from the Nouakchott fish market, which is the landing site of artisanal fishing practitioners (18°05'35'N; 16°01'34'W)."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the fish market in Nouakchott to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 07:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Gowen[edit]

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

No sources on the article, only a single promary external link Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Maryland, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Profile here in the NY Times [20] and mentions the award/prize won in 1978. I'd say he's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also appears to be featured in this book, but Gbooks blocks it due to copyright reasons in my country [21] Oaktree b (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Oaktree; a profile in one of the US's largest newspapers is pretty damning to me. Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article is in my opinion poorly written and very poorly cited. But the subject seems notable for their performance career. Needs a serious rewrite, though. Qflib (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- solo recital features in the NYTimes is generally enough for classical music features (it also strongly suggests that there would have been much other coverage in the late 1970s in newspapers and magazines that don't have an easily searchable digital archive). Notability at one point in life is notability over the rest of the subject's life. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Cars characters. Owen× ☎ 07:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Hudson[edit]

Doc Hudson (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)

Having a hard time finding any valuable sources about this character per BEFORE. Most of it were just talking about its mysterious death. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. With just a Weak Keep, I think I can close this discussion as Delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Lenarduzzi[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this rugby player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Rugby union, Italy, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage of his rugby union career seems to be limited, and I can't see anything obvious on his rugby league career. I can't see a suitable redirect per WP:ATD either. I'm at delete now, but if our rugby league editors find some sourcing I'll reconsider. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep on the grounds that his career seems to be more that is written, but more sourcing and prose need to retain the article. Mn1548 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. While the participating editors here might not have addressed the nominator's concern there is a clear consensus to Keep this article and, probably what might be more important, no support at all for deletion of this article. It may not have sources from after 2023 but the participating editors here have concluded that the sources are good enough. If it were more of a borderline situation, I'd relist this discussion again but opinion seems nearly unanimous except for the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion[edit]

Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion (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:NOTNEWS - no reliable sources covering the article subject after 2023. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Owen× ☎ 23:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep The article needs more work about the unit's actions in 2024. It's lazy to call for a deletion of a page because you don't find sources from a certain year. On that note, the vast majority of the sources from 2023 in this article are considered reliable. Salfanto (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Important unit of the war in Ukraine. The article is sourced well enough, and the sudject has been covered rather extensively. And if @Manyareasexpert didnt delete several news articles covering the battalion, there would be no reason for nomination. F.Alexsandr (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Greetings, only unreliable sources were deleted. Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Seems notable and important Marcelus (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many RS to establish notability. FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 11. This was NAC-closed as "SNOW" early, despite not meeting the general criteria for SNOW. I encourage the AfD nominator (also the DRV appellant) to reply to some of the 'keep' opinions above, addressing their concerns from a P&G standpoint and discussing SUSTAINED as it may apply here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable unit, enough RS. Florificapis (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings all, thanks for all the votes. WP:GNG is a complex guide, and all of the criteria of it should be met for the article to meet GNG, including WP:SUSTAINED. It's not enough for the article to have "good" or "many" RS, the SUSTAINED criteria should be met for the article to exist. Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and WP:NUNIT, obviously notable, and per above. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
per GNG and WP:NUNIT
It doesn't fit WP:SUSTAINED of GNG. NUNIT covers military units, and if you read article content, all of it is reported "by Russian sources", so it looks more like a media phenomena, not a real military formation. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Complex/Rational 02:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine Yellow Kitchen Photo[edit]

Ukraine Yellow Kitchen Photo (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)

Doubtful lasting significance. Bedivere (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, cant find any mention of either the photo or the photographer after February 2023. F.Alexsandr (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Tonga national rugby union players. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jethro Felemi[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Tongan rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WNKJ-TV[edit]

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

A recent review of FCC records, available literature, and the Kentucky New Era indicates that WNKJ-TV never broadcast, even though a permit was awarded. The FCC lists the permit as deleted May 7, 1984. We do not maintain articles, except in exceptional circumstances, on TV station permits that were not constructed, which applies to WNKJ-TV and the second attempt at the allocation, WKKT-TV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that this should have been deprodded and brought to AfD because the case is fairly clear. For the record, I wrote the prod text which has been copied here and would vote delete. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see the WP:SIGCOV needed for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Given that the only source for the claimed "actual operation" of the station (that apparently never actually happened) was the Broadcasting Yearbook, I feel confident in deeming this another reason why sourcing solely or primarily to databases is not what Wikipedia is looking for in 2024. We need significant coverage, and stations that never were tend not to get that in the end. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing SIGCOV despite (possibly erroneous) database listings. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kadhum Auda[edit]

Kadhum Auda (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:SPORTSCRIT. The current archived reference seems to only be a single sentence database entry, and a WP:BEFORE search revealed only similarly trivial mentions/database entries.

As an aside, I believe that this is the first article I have nominated for deletion, so please let me know if I have missed something here. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 01:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Delta Goodrem. ✗plicit 01:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bunkerdown Sessions[edit]

The Bunkerdown Sessions (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 be notable. Basically just a list of songs performed. This should be a paragraph in Delta Goodrem at most. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_May_12&oldid=1225018082"