Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 03	May 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Air China Flight 403[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the event criteria. All coverage is from the day of the event. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and China. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of lasting effects whilst also failing the event criteria and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Plenty of sources, subject compliant with other policies. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a textbook example of a lack of continued coverage. It is, however, terrifying that such a well-sourced article could be deleted based on that. The rules say delete but I can't bring myself to !vote for it. Closer may interpret this how they wish :) Toadspike (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could not find anything written after the day of the event. I added more citations to improve it. Procidic (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A classic example of WP:NOTNEWS (policy on What Wikipedia is not). The article provides the answer that there is no lasting effects in the "Aftermath" section "...the accident is still under investigation". There is no indepth coverage beyond the relatively short news cycle. There were 37 million aircraft movements in 2023 with 30 incidents involving turboprops and jet aircraft. Article is just not notable event. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor incident that fails WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE per previous responses. As with similar minor incidents, it can be adequately summarized in the article about where the airport where it took place. Carguychris (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:CASESTUDY and WP:EVENTCRITERIA FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:CASESTUDY and WP:EVENTCRITERIA IDKUggaBanga (talk) 20:09, 11 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 Mutiara line without prejudice against a selective merge of content, where editorially justified. Owen× ☎ 14:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jalan Tengah station[edit]

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

A number of stubs have been mass-created on light rail stations for the proposed Mutiara line. They are all estimated to be opening in 2030. None of these stubs say anything of substance about the stations, and so I am proposing they all either be deleted or redirected to Mutiara line en masse. The stations include the following:

Skycab station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
East Jelutong station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
USM station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gelugor station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pesta station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sungai Nibong station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bukit Jambul station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FIZ North station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FIZ South station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sungai Tiram station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Permatang Damar Laut station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jalan Tengah station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Light station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Macallum station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bandar Sri Pinang station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Malaysia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a line that is scheduled for construction this year. Why should we delete these pages that will have to created at the end anyways? gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 23:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Mutiara line per nom as WP:TOOSOON. The groundbreaking hasn't even started on this line yet. Jumpytoo Talk 23:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Mutiara line would be the wisest choice indeed. TH1980 (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all - no evidence of independent notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge before redirecting, some appear to have some information about what is currently on the proposed sites which feels encyclopaedic. TIL they are planning a connection to Seberang Perai. CMD (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Chipmunkdavis. There is almost never a reason to delete articles on verifiable stations when a suitable merge target exists, and the outcome of these AfDs is always merge or redirect, so I don't get why they keep being nominated? Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per WP:EDRED, since WP:N looks to be a concern as of now. As with other metro lines, coverage will expand in tandem with construction, and leaving open the possibility of later conversions into full-fledged articles. hundenvonPG (talk) 05:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Mutiara line per others. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 08:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trainsandotherthings, you have not formatted this bundled nomination correctly. You just created a list of articles which is not appropriate. It will be very difficult for a closer to close this discussion using the XFDcloser editing tool that we use. Please review the instructions for bundled nominations at WP:AFD and reformat your nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This may come as a surprise to you, but I have never closed an AfD discussion before. It would have taken you all of two seconds to simply say "please use Template:La for the list". In any event, I have done so. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:37, 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 redirect‎ to University of Washington Tacoma. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrix the Husky[edit]

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

Don't see any notability and the sources probably come from the school itself. Link rot really hit it hard and when I tried to go to one of the sources, it triggered my antivirus and adblock. Okmrman (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – To University of Washington Tacoma. Svartner (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Washington Tacoma. The only coverage (1, 2) of the subject seems to be in the university's student-run publication, The Tacoma Ledger. Mooonswimmer 20:01, 6 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 close‎ as yet another accidential AfD nomination of a talk page where the rationale clearly proposes the deletion of the article. The nominator has subsequently initiated a PROD for The Dancing Clown itself (I am not sure if even this misfired AfD would invalidate all future PRODs), and someone else has since also tagged it for G3 speedy deletion (which would render any AfD moot anyway if carried out), so not sure a procedural proper nomination is required yet. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Dancing Clown[edit]

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

This article is likely a hoax; see its talk page. Its 2 sources don't mention The Dancing Clown at all. GoldRomean (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. GoldRomean (talk) 23:12, 4 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!} 22:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Delano[edit]

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

No sign of notability. Only source is an IMDB entry. Search returns no coverage. Fails WP:GNG Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obituaries for people with the same name, but nothing found otherwise for this film person. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Bill Delano created this about himself. Aside from it being his autobiography, there is no substantive content. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Television, California, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per — Maile . Self-promotional article of a non-notable filmmaker (here are his personal websites: 1, 2). No SIGCOV at all of him or any of his work. Surprised this article has been up for 17 years. Mooonswimmer 18:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass any element of WP:NPROF, either. Qflib (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as autobiography. Better Nuncio (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Wp:GNG and simple WP:42 FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:38, 11 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 List of television stations in Texas#LPTV stations. This is the only Merge/Redirect target article mentioned so that's why I chose it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KLEG-CD[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; just two sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to state list Not enough GNG coverage. Station called itself "KMAX" in the early years on channel 19 and apparently "Tele America" in the early 2000s. But that didn't result in enough sustained coverage. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
State list . Found no sources, so why not list it?Danubeball (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of television stations in Texas#LPTV stations: this is presumably the state list alluded to in the prior !votes. The "merge" here is solely because the list currently does not list any of the services carried by the station, instead showing it as "silent"; other than fixing that up, this is essentially really proposing a redirect as an alternative to deletion. There's only so much we can truly say if the significant coverage is lacking and the local content has been minimal; a separate article here is a remnant of the lower standards of 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 7 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!} 22:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1961 Kunar River Incursion[edit]

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

This article fails WP:N and WP:HISTRS. Two of its sources are blog sites in Persian and Urdu, and the third source includes a passing mention with no mention of an Afghan victory. MrGreen1163 (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can translate it in English for you 2001:8003:3F18:1C00:F5F7:C528:9763:9738 (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Defiantly fails Wikipedia:Notability. No everything needs an article. Not ready for mainspace. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:04, 9 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. Owen× ☎ 15:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ali Masjid (1839)[edit]

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

Another one of these pages. -- Poorly sourced with sources that fail WP:HISTRS, some sources also fall under WP:RAJ. Noorullah (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Afghanistan. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how this article is Poorly sourced? Alvin1783 (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these sources are not WP:RS/WP:HISTRS, this has been a growing issue where many of these pages are poorly sourced as per my numerous other AFD's opened on such. Some are unreliable primary sources that can fall under WP:RAJ for example. As @Southasianhistorian8 said accurately on this AFD: "Moreover, we're seeing a trend of editors creating articles based on small paragraphs from select one or two books solely so they can inundate Wikipedia with pages promoting religious heroism." Noorullah (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, he is prolly biased cuz he is Afghan himself. 1 Princeton and 1 Cambridge source itself, how is it even poor lol. Unless you're gonna Cambridge (one of the best unis in the world) unreliable. 2 more Punjab university and 1 more Uni of California source. I think it's alright. Akshunwar (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the information is written from unreliable sources, other sources fail WP:V. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a cambridge source tho??? As well as a Princeton source??? Akshunwar (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Akshunwar, this [1] "Cambridge source" is indeed unreliable. Take time and see WP: AGEMATTERS and WP:RAJ. A 175 year old book could never be cited here, especially with Raj influence. About the Princeton press, I can only see an intro part (that too not related to the article's scope) being cited. And Meh, he is prolly biased cuz he is Afghan himself, is a personal attack. See WP:PA. Comment on the topic for you're here, not on the person. Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the Sources now fit WP:RAJ and are from Renowned Historians dont need to delete Alvin1783 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Per nom. Can neither find "Battle of Ali Masjid" in WP:RS neither.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also commenting:

The user that created the page attempted to remove the AFD notice: [2]. Noorullah (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the Sources now fit WP:RAJ and are from Renowned Historians dont need to delete Alvin1783 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources pass the WP:RAJ issue as noted earlier. None of the sources are WP: RAJ in this article and the issues that were initially pointed have been since corrected. The current sources on the page such as Khushwant Singh and Ganda Singh are more then WP:RS. This page meets all the requirements that were pointed out. Further page 10 by Ganda Singh clearly show the success at Ali Masjid by the Sikh service.[3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festivalfalcon873 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: The Sources now Fit WP:RAJ and are from Reputable historians such as Ganda Singh the Primary sources were also replaced with Reliable ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvin1783 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Many of the new sources added are still not WP:RS or WP:HISTRS at all. Richard Macrory; Not a historian, Mathew, K.S; not a historian, Lal Suri, Sohan; a primary source, "Journal of Sikh Studies, Volume 9"; Not a reliable source, Singh, Khushwant; Not a historian, Hoiberg, Dale; Not a historian.

Point is most of the citations on this page are not from historians at all, thus not being reliable sources. Noorullah (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding comment: Some of the content in the article is stating complete lies: I quote "As Akbar Khan stood at the entrance of the pass, waiting for the oncoming enemy, he was informed with dismay that Ghazni had fallen." (Article cited page 43), Source: "On July 7, 1839 'Ali Masjid was lost to forces under Wade and Shahzada Timur". [4]

There is 0 mention at all of any Sikh commander.

Second example of the same source:

Article: "Dost Mohammed Khan recalled his son to Kabul once Ali Masjid fell to Col. Sheikh Basawan and Shahzada Timur's army on July 27, 1839". (page 75) Source: [5] Source is entirely unrelated to this at all. Noorullah (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noorullah21 Hey so for the first one i managed to fix that issue by including the correct citation. The information was actually quoting a source called "Anglo Sikh relations" rather than Christine Noelle. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 16:31, 11 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!} 22:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Wagman[edit]

(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. I found a couple of sentences about him in a match report here, but no sustained or in-depth coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Rugby union. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG Claire 26 (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There is profile here and a few bits in Scottish media, but not really enough for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:07, 5 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!} 22:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugginenti[edit]

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

PROD removed. There is no evidence of notability for this surname. It is an utter WP:NNAME and WP:NOTDICT fail; there are no English Wikipedia or Italian Wikipedia articles about people with the name, nor are there any Wikidata items. The sources in the article don't show notability (dictionaries and name databases), and nothing I could find is any better. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NOT. Rugginenti looks like a notable publishing house [6] which should replace the current namecruft Geschichte (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT Claire 26 (talk) 20:20, 4 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!} 22:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Infographics Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Inline sources few and unreliable, few no mention of notability by trusted secondary sources. This is the third nomination, however the second nomination generated a few good ideas on why it should be deleted. 2003 LN 6 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. 2003 LN 6 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Education, Internet, and Slovenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will go with delete on this one. The sources really are an issue. In the previous discussion, Interested Engineering was outlined as the only relevant source, but that article covers only a single video with an interesting topic. After some searching, I found some more passing mentions of the same type but no in depth coverage one would expect for GNG. At least the basic details would need to be covered by some other source than youtube itself to meet the GNG. --Tone 19:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. The listed sources in the article seem really out-of-place and don't discuss the entire subject, only a few notable videos. 2003 LN 6 01:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete easily fails WP:GNG -1ctinus📝🗨 19:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DannyC55. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:40, 10 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 Chase Oliver#2024 presidential campaign. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Oliver 2024 presidential campaign[edit]

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

All the content here fits comfortably in Chase Oliver#2024 presidential campaign. Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOPAGE, I propose the previous redirect to that section be restored. Per my WP:BEFORE search, there is simply not enough reliably sourced content to warrant a standalone page at the present time. Sal2100 (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Politicians, Libertarianism, and United States of America. Sal2100 (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has been included in national polling, and im sure we kept Jo Jorgensen 2020 presidential campaign and even Vermin Supreme 2020 presidential campaign, the latter of which didnt even get nominated. Lukt64 (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The national polling im referring to is this Lukt64 (talk) 18:43, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify/merge. Mostly routine coverage that can be covered in his main article. Because he his a front runner in the Libertarian primaries, it probably makes sense to keep this page as a draft as the campaign will be notable if he becomes the Libertarian nominee. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect So mention the polls in the main article, that's not justification for a standalone page when there's so little content. Split when warranted. Reywas92^Talk 20:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Blatant use of Wikipedia as political campaign announcements. See 2022 article Chase Oliver, from which this article duplicates much. This one is complete with his campaign logo. Note that his website link goes directly to his campaign video. — Maile (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I... have nothing to do with chase olivers campaign, if thats what you are saying. Lukt64 (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to you at all. Just the fact (or coincidence) that there are two articles that make it look like this candidate was using Wikipedia two years ago to run for this year's campaign. And that Wikipedia probably needs to merge them together. — Maile (talk) 03:24, 5 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 Blue Lights (2023 TV series). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Ellis[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Fancruft for a fictional character. Sources in the article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article contains a significant amount of original research and unsourced content (eg: Grace Ellis#Storylines). Once the unsourced and original research not much is left other than material from promo interviews.

Source eval table:

Comments	Source
Cast announcement, promo, fails WP:IS, brief info on character	1. "Cast announced for brand new BBC One drama Blue Lights as filming begins". BBC Media Centre. 14 February 2022. Archived from the original on 24 February 2022. Retrieved 17 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Bennion, Chris (2 April 2023). "Blue Lights star Sian Brooke: 'We're reflecting the reality of policing – good and bad'". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 6 April 2024. Retrieved 17 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Allen, Kelly (10 April 2023). "Blue Lights star Sian Brooke 'talked at length' with PSNI officers for role research". Belfast Telegraph. Archived from the original on 19 April 2023. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	4. ^ Jump up to:a b Layton, Mark (17 October 2022). "Exclusive: 'Blue Lights' creators on taking BBC police drama from script to screen". Television Business International. Archived from the original on 17 October 2022. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	5. ^ Jump up to:a b Sian Brooke (Blue Lights Actress) On This Morning [18.04.2024] (Television production). This Morning. 18 April 2024. Archived from the original on 1 May 2024. Retrieved 1 May 2024 – via YouTube.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	6. ^ Jump up to:a b Cormack, Morgan (27 March 2023). "Blue Lights' Sian Brooke explains personal family inspiration for role". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 28 September 2023. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	7. ^ Jump up to:a b c Tate, Gabriel (15 April 2024). "Blue Lights star Sian Brooke: 'Policing is in a very odd place at the moment – it's been shocking to hear'". The Independent. Archived from the original on 15 April 2024. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	8. ^ Jump up to:a b c "'Blue Lights' star Siân Brooke on Belfast, breaking records and a highly anticipated new season". What's On TV. 15 April 2024. Archived from the original on 15 April 2024. Retrieved 18 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	9. ^ Jump up to:a b c Gordon, Naomi (15 April 2024). "Blue Lights star Siân Brooke hints more character deaths could happen". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 23 April 2024. Retrieved 2 May 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	10. ^ Jump up to:a b c Szalai, Georg (15 April 2024). "'Blue Lights' Star Siân Brooke on How the BBC's Belfast Police Drama Has "Hope at Its Heart"". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 17 April 2024. Retrieved 1 May 2024.
Brief mention of character, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject - the character - directly and indepth	11. ^ Hilton, Nick (15 April 2024). "Blue Lights review: Series two may be first rate, but there are still too many police dramas on TV". The Independent. Archived from the original on 18 April 2024. Retrieved 2 May 2024.
Season review, mentions characters in plot summary, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV	12. ^ Jump up to:a b Hibbs, James (16 April 2024). "Blue Lights season 2 review: Police drama's return is even more assured". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 24 April 2024. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
Brief mention of character, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject - the character - directly and indepth	13. ^ Sigee, Rachael (15 April 2024). "Blue Lights review: This is the successor to Happy Valley". iNews. Archived from the original on 16 April 2024. Retrieved 17 April 2024.
Brief mention of character, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject - the character - directly and indepth	14. ^ Nicholson, Rebecca (1 May 2023). "Blue Lights: this thrilling cop drama is one of TV's best shows". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 28 December 2023. Retrieved 1 May 2024.

No objection to a redirect to Blue Lights (2023 TV series)#Cast. Author disputed even tagging the article. // Timothy :: talk 18:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Police, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above source analysis, not enough coverage of the character, potentially become notable through planned two additional series but unlikely. Indagate (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per MOS:PLOTSOURCE. the plot/storyline sections do not need to be sourced, and it isn't uncommon to leave citations out of the lead either so I don't understand the claims of original research (E x a m p l e s). The articles do count as independent as they talk about the character in depth through interviews - if the subject was not notable, the interviews would not have been arranged, and they are being arranged by sources independent of the show. Additionally, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this article is in no way different. FishLoveHam (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plot sections don't normally have refs, but can have notes / refs to indicate where the plot comes from, in this case the episode. An independent interview requires all people involved to not have a connection to the discussion. What do you mean about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? That's an argument to avoid and you're the only person to link to another article. Indagate (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect unless more sources relating to significant coverage of the character exists (see WP:FICT). The reception is just taking tidbits out of reviews for the show, not anything in-depth about the character. Spinixster (trout me!) 11:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per source analysis. The sources don't provide enough coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:07, 6 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 delete‎. G7: the creator of the article has asked for deletion. JBW (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rectenwald 2024 presidential campaign[edit]

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

Per WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOPAGE, and my WP:BEFORE search, not enough reliably sourced content to warrant a standalone page. As an alternative to outright deletion, I propose a redirect to Michael Rectenwald#2024 presidential campaign. Sal2100 (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Politicians, Libertarianism, and United States of America. Sal2100 (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The campaign of a candidate for a minor party's nomination who came fourth is very, very unlikely to be sufficiently notable for a standalone page. I'm not seeing anything to convince me otherwise. AusLondonder (talk) 18:18, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I made this at 10:00 last night and my brain forgot WP:NOTABILITY existed Lukt64 (talk) 18:31, 4 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 Toby Fox#Other credits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Miss You - EarthBound 2012[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Barely any WP:RS coverage. ~ lovkal (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toby Fox#Other credits where the album is mentioned. I thought about tagging the article under WP:CSD#A9, but it isn't eliglible since one of these artists has an article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per CycloneYoris and because I am unable to find any third party coverage in reliable sources. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:57, 4 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Sinek[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; no medal placements at any level. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and North Carolina. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear WP:GNG pass. The latest in a series of poor nominations. JTtheOG (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With sources such as [[7]], this subject meets the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:31, 7 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) Cavarrone 15:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beata Handra[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; no medal placements at any level. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and California. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [[8]] and [[9]]. Let'srun (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Rubbish. Meets WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV from multiple reliable sources. JTtheOG (talk) 21:12, 10 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. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 19:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KITM-LD[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The most previous AfD resulted in the keep outcome but that was in 2020, when notability thresholds for television stations were much looser than today. Let'srun (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Hawaii. Let'srun (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Community consensus is clear that television stations and channels must meet at least WP:GNG therefore requiring significant coverage in secondary sources. This was a short-lived, low-power station with no indication of notability. No secondary sources at the article and I'm not finding anything else significant. AusLondonder (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Suffice it to say, it is obvious from the way the first nomination played out that the 2021 RfC that affirmed GNG as the actual notability standard in this topic area and consequently rewrote BCASTOUTCOMES was still in the future. FCC records, databases, and the station's own website are not GNG sources (especially the station website, a non-independent source) and cannot be the only sources in any article — and as usual, this is the usual run-of-the-mill 2010s-started LPTV where the chances of there being the required significant coverage are also virtually zero. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wcquiddich and the impossibility we could ever source this station's actual schedule; this was a clear 'run for fun' distraction for a mainlander who retired to the islands. Nate • (chatter) 18:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, no article.Danubeball (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WCQuidditch, no sources and really cant be. Fails GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Waqar💬 18:14, 6 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 Toyota (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 15:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports venues with the name Toyota[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN due to a lack of sources establishing these entries as a group in RS. Let'srun (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toyota (disambiguation), which already lists several of these. Reywas92^Talk 15:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but maybe instead target to Toyota#Sport sponsorships. This already covers it, though the section could use some clean up. Conyo14 (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toyota (disambiguation). Azuredivay (talk) 06:15, 8 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 14:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of shared franchise names in North American professional sports[edit]

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

Unusual topic - I am not convinced it is notable. Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Lists, and North America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly trivial and fails WP:NLIST as there is no significant coverage of these teams as a group. Frank Anchor 17:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NLIST. I did not need to search very far to understand that some team names are shared, but in no way is that notable. Nothing appeared on radar, and it just seems like a clash of copyright that is handled at the business level. Conyo14 (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing NLIST Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NLIST. This also violates WP:OR, WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT. Flibirigit (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR and in any case, trivia. Rlendog (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It's fun trivia, but still trivia. Easily fails NLIST and FANCRUFT. The Kip 19:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Due to WP:OR and WP:LISTN not being met. Let'srun (talk) 20:29, 7 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. While no commenter supports deletion (which even the nominator does not explicitly ask for), views are split between keep and redirect. This has been relisted more than enough times already. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beetroot cake[edit]

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

Non-notable cake that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Beetroot, where several recipes are mentioned; agree with nom it's not really notable in itself. This one can be added at Beetroot as it's reliably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there seems to be enough sources available, particularly if the scope is broadened slightly to include the use of beetroot as a supplement to other baked products (for reasons of extending the shelf-life, for example). Klbrain (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the relevant page. The article doesn't sit well alone, so redirecting is probably best. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I thought all of our "cake articles" (and "salad articles") had already passed through AFD but here is another.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I stumbled across two sources today that discuss this cake as a style of chocolate cake, and it made me remember there are multiple terms in English, depending on what variety of Englis -- beetroot vs. beet, for instance -- which complicates things when searching for information. And there may be some history around Red velvet cake. I'm waffling a bit, but right now I'm thinking rather than redirect to beetroot (or to chocolate cake), we can keep. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:33, 27 April 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, Daniel (talk) 11:55, 4 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!} 15:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XSharp[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This programming language does not have enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Just another .NET addon. Previously deleted in a 2009 AfD but resurrected by a WP:SPA in 2016. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been AfD'd, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of significant coverage via my cursory look. Also should be salted. [This should not go without a consensus] X (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 21:17, 27 April 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, Daniel (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable programming language. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 18:35, 4 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehr Hassan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:Notability Wikibear47 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has been in multiple films that seem to have wikipedia articles of their own. As per: WP:ARTIST, criteria 3, that should probably be enough.

also, seems like this is the 3rd nomination. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Music, Fashion, Pakistan, Punjab, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The newspapers used now in the article for sourcing are all there is for this person; I don't see notability beyond the local level. I can't find any mention of them otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact she has been seen on multiple movies which has a wikipedia page doesn't qualify her to have a wikipedia page. This is just like the case of Lucy Grantham (2nd nomination). The subject Mehr Hassan fails WP:GNG. Her first AFD which was keep was just a two vote of keep which was still saying because she appeared in a movie. No independent reliable source, No award won or being nominated as an actress or dancer. I really don't see anything notable. --Meligirl5 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable films. The Louisville Courier article too makes a case for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does having just one reliable source qualifies a person of having a Wikipedia page?

Hassan started her dancing career as a stage performer in the United States.

How do we believe such statement with no reliable source.?--Meligirl5 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR, which is clearly the applicable guideline. rspεεr (talk) 14:30, 18 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!} 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. WP:NACTOR appears to hold here for now, although perhaps the articles for the films she starred should be reviewed for their notability. The bottom line is that long as those films are notable, she is, if barely. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm familiar with a "Soft Delete" but can anyone define a "Soft Keep" for me? Do you mean "Weak Keep"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR at this point for the roles in notable films she starred in. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:07, 3 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, Daniel (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject's claim of appearing in numerous films lacks verifiable evidence, thus failing to meet WP:ARTISTS. The available coverage appears to be routine per WP:ROTM and lacks the depth required by WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Courier-Journal article wasn't routine, and by what sources we have, Hassan was in these films, noting that the sourcing of the related film articles was light (thus my 'Weak Keep'). I suspect however that her appearance in some of them was exaggerated to make it appear she was a lead when she wasn't. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, The Courier-Journal is great however unfortunately it's no where near enough to establish notability, Not sure if her roles have been major or minor but either way I cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails NACTOR and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR says "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films" and we know she was in several notable films (i.e., films with articles). If you're saying the subject fails NACTOR, are you saying these linked films should be reviewed in AfD? Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But NACTOR states The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films which I can't see reflected here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Partial filmography" in the article links to five notable films (currently adjudged by Wikipedia) and I suppose it's our opinion as to whether her roles were significant in them. It's part of why I say "Weak Keep" as I don't want to overjudge. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to say whether she fails NACTOR #1 but personally I would say she does and despite the The Courier-Journal link imho she still fails #2 too, FWIW all of her roles could've been one-bit/minor roles so article linkage doesn't mean anything here, (and leading on to your last point nicely) There's just not enough info to determine whether she meets NACTOR #1 or not but either way I would obviously say she still fails #2, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 17:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In NACTOR, it says #1 or #2. The subject doesn't have to meet both criteria to pass it. I accept that we would need to judge whether the roles are significant but as it was difficult, source-wise, to drill down on these films, I don't want to rush to judgment, thus my "Weak Keep". I still say the key here is to look at the film articles and see if they should be kept. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the articles and their sources as well as looked online - The Gold Bracelet is just about notable with the rest not being notable so imho one notable film and one notable paper cite is still not enough irrespective of what role she played, I guess the article can be redirected to The Gold Bracelet if really desired,

You're more than welcome to search for these films for yourself and judge for yourself, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for welcoming me to do something I've already done. :) So, if only one film is notable, why do the others have articles? (can be taken as a rhetorical question) Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. If you've searched these articles before now then why the fuck are you here questioning their notability ?. Go nominate them if you think they're not notable.

Because get this Stefen - some articles go undetected and unnoticed, ever thought about that ?, I suspect not :). –Davey2010^Talk 18:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also for future reference go read WP:BLUDGEON. You've !voted keep so as such you don't need to reply to every single delete !vote regurgitating the same line again and again. –Davey2010^Talk 18:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion, and it is eminently reasonable to challenge a position. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for you to be cross with me here. I have been professional and I expect the same in return. The fact that the articles exist show that they are currently presented as notable subjects, whether they deserve this determination or not. I may well prod the articles in question, but for the time-being, they cannot be dismissed. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance. Fails WP:NACTOR. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON, but there nothing here to indicate a pass on WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:44, 10 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) Cavarrone 08:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Ferrier[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. This was previously deleted in 2019 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Ferrier and then got recreated in fall 2023 after his death, but this version is still referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all -- even the one footnote that's technically citing a newspaper is still just his paid-inclusion death notice in the classifieds, not a journalist-written news story about his death, and virtually everything else is content self-published by companies or organizations he was directly affiliated with, while the one potentially acceptable source (LitLive) is not enough to clinch passage of GNG all by itself.
And for notability claims, there are statements (a minor literary award, presidency of an organization) that might count for something if they were sourced properly, but there's still absolutely nothing that would be "inherently" notable enough to hand him an automatic notability freebie in the absence of proper WP:GNG-worthy sourcing.
And the French interlang is based entirely on the same poor sourcing as this one, so it has no GNG-worthy footnotes that can be copied over to salvage this either. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The French language sources aren't poor, they're excellent. Passes GNG easily on this basis. Desertarun (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both the English and French articles are based entirely on primary sources that are not support for notability, such as "staff" profiles or press releases on the self-published websites of organizations and companies that he was directly affiliated with — only one source (LitLive) is GNG-worthy at all, and one GNG-worthy source isn't enough. People don't pass GNG just by using primary sources to verify facts, people pass GNG by showing third-party journalism and/or books that cover said facts as subjects of news and analysis. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 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!} 23:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has plenty of references so it seems like coverage is enough to pass notability guidelines. InDimensional (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passed notability in my eyes Sansbarry (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't a question of "your eyes", it's a question of whether the correct kind of sourcing is there or not. Bearcat (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think "in my eyes" means in my opinion of whether or not the sourcing is good@Bearcat Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out precisely which sources are "good", considering that they're pretty much all primary sources right across the board. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The citations presented are OK.Yolandagonzales (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has plenty of good references Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While every opinion after the deletion nomination has been a bolded 'keep', I am still not suitably persuaded. Further discourse regarding the 'quality' (in Wikipedia terms) of the French sources appears to be needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even just limiting my search to English language sources, I see enough to meet WP:GNG. [10], [11], [12], ProQuest 1430523918, ProQuest 821134990. Jfire (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the article significantly using these sources and more. Jfire (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has reliable sources to prove its notability. It passes GNG. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 23:33, 4 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. On balance, the Delete arguments carry more weight, but they do not rise to the level of a rough consensus to take any action, including redirecting. Improvements in sourcing made to the article during this monthlong AfD bring hope that by the time the page is eligible for renomination, that would not be necessary. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chashni (TV series)[edit]

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

Notability issue. It's not even runed for 6 months. Xegma(talk) 07:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. TV Series ran on Star Plus and streamed digitally on Disney+ Hotstar. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NTVNATL. Reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NTV Imsaneikigai (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redirect to StarPlus would be an acceptable WP:ATD but experience shows me it would likely end up in an edit war over the next year. The issue is not that the series exists, but the referencing. Notability is not based on WP:ITEXISTS. It is based on secondary "RELIABLE" sources. In this case, the sources cannot be considered reliable as they fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. No bylines and churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:CNMall41, i have updated the article with primary and better sources, hope now it is better. Please suggest improvements if any and please reconsider your vote. Imsaneikigai (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You included one reference which squarely falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Byline is "web desk." Not sure how much clearer I can make this. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These references [13] [14][15] [16] are primary sources and also have bylines. These also do not have any churnalism. Kindly check. @CNMall41 Imsaneikigai (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interview with the actress about the actress and only mentions her role, This is an interview with the director which is not independent nor does it have editorial oversight, This is a brief announcement about it losing a time slot, and This is about an actress and only verifies she plays a role in the show, not in-depth about the show itself]. As previously stated, there is enough to verify its existence but WP:ITEXISTS couldn't be used as a valid argument. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This [17] interview is of the actor (hero) and not director, also can you explain what do you mean by "editorial oversight" because this article is based on the interview taken by the media house itself with the actor. Thanks. Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Editorial oversight is about fact checking. Interviews like this are not. Similar to you asking me a question and me answering, there needs to be editorial oversight where there is not in this case. I could say that I am a billionaire but without editorial oversight, there is no way to verify that. Regardless, it is not indepdnent and none of this is significant. AGAIN, it only VERIFIES the existence of the show, not establishes notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but how can you say that there is no reference that denies WP:NEWSORGINDIA? because there are personalised interviews of the cast with the specific media house like Times of India and The Tribune! Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I understand what you mean by "no reference that denies NEWSORGINDIA." The references you just pointed out are not independent and only brief mentions so there is no need to even evaluate them under NEWSORGINDIA because they couldn't be used to establish notability regardless. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to tag the articles/references i was talking about. This [18] the interview of one of the main cast about the track with The Tribune, second [19] this tells about the development a particular cast member has put to fit in role. Also this reference [20] tells us about the production phase of the series and is reliable as per WP:ICTFSOURCES Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming ad nauseam and seems to be grasping at straws at this point. I realize you have a passion for this as the creator the page, but these have already been addressed. Interviews are not independent - PERIOD - It does not matter that they verify. One of the references is about an actor losing weight for the show. It only mentions him as having a part in the show, not anything about the show itself. The BH articles clearly falls under NEWSORGINDIA if you look at the byline. This I know you are familiar with as you talked about bylines above. Not sure what else to tell you at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:50, 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!} 08:22, 20 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) 08:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A high profile tv series well sourced. Desertarun (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG as far as the basic skeleton of the article, but the plot summary needs to either get better sourcing or needs to be switched to a two-sentence logline. Nate • (chatter) 22:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Can those voting !Keep possibly point out the references that show notability that do NOT fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA? I am seeing nothing but. I will gladly change my !vote if someone is willing to show me what I do not see. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what policy that is, as thats a redlink@CNMall41 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Me Da Wikipedian:, I fixed it. Two letters were transposed. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A number of the 'keep' !votes are on the weaker end, and I think CNMall41's question 6 days ago is a reasonable one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is well-sourced plus 6 month long run is not insignificant run. Pri2000 (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, can you point out the significant coverage that does not fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The series only ran for approximately 2.5 months. Despite being featured on a notable channel with a notable cast, the main issue with this article is its references. While it may meet WP:NTV, it certainly does not pass WP:GNG. & I agree with CNMall41's viewpoint, as it raises a valid point. ManaliJain (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @ManaliJain, I have just updated and sourced the plot as well as cited the cast with sources which I feel are sufficient to determine significant coverage and verifiability. Also I have removed no bylines references as well. Please check. Thankyou. Imsaneikigai (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First, I dont think duration is the parameter for notability because there are many Indian Series which have lasted lesser than the series or similar than the series like Pracchand Ashok (39 episodes), Sherdil Shergill, Lag Ja Gale etc. Secondly, I feel the article has enough reliable sources and has constantly been updated with regards to the problems suggested above by User:CNMall41. There are enough sources with bylines like these[21] [22] [23][24] [25] and also there is no churnalism because every media portal has taken separate interview with the cast or have written unidentical content on the series with establishes verifiability. Thirdly, if we look most of the Indian tv articles are mostly similarly referenced and I have searched Bollywood Hungama articles and every article has the same byline "Bollywood Hungama News Network" thereby certainly ensuring that not all articles are paid articles. I think every region has its own policies of journalism and litter leverage can be given on these aspects. Imsaneikigai (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment I have to this AfD. As stated previously, these only verify the existence. Verifiability is not notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I couldn’t find reliable evidence of WP:SIGCOV for a notability claim. Contributor892z (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to an article listing the channel's original media. Having reviewed the citatitons identified by Imsaneikigai, none of them include significant coverage of the subject itself, comprising either softball interviews with actors or promotional pre-release coverage. What we need are critics' reviews, or articles that otherwise comment on the substance and significance of the show; this is lacking after three relists. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No objection to a consensus Redirect to StarPlus. 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 found primary sources, name mentions, nothing meeting SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 17:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:HEY, article substantially improved since nomination, with bylined articles published in rather reliable media covering the production, so that deletion is quite unnecessary in my view. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:36, 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panasonic Connect[edit]

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

Deprod by @MSMST1543:. There are lots of press releases available, with announcements similar to what's already cited, but nothing in-depth about the company itself. I do not believe this article would be able to meet WP:NCORP. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:11, 13 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!} 06:34, 20 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) 08:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. Easily passes GNG. DCsansei (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DCsansei, both for GNG and NCORP, trivial coverage (e.g. WP:ORGTRIV) are not counted towards meeting the requirements? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:24, 2 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, Daniel (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources seem to be in-depth and independent, just interviews and press releases. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only the financial figures are from press releases, all other citations are from independent media outlets. Bridges&Horizons (talk) 06:21, 7 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 over-the-air HSN affiliates. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K32NM-D[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Iowa. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of over-the-air HSN affiliates: It's another run-of-the-mill Ventana Television station that has only ever carried HSN, HSN-related networks, QVC and its related networks (after they became sister networks to HSN), and a random .6 Dabl affiliation. This has never really warranted anything beyond an {{R to list entry}}. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:44, 4 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 10:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paper organization[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No refs, nor could I find sufficient reliable sources to add. Potentially ambiguous term, doesn't meet WP:N. Some WP:ATDs (redirect) mentioned in last AfD, though I wouldn't agree as the term is ambiguous, and I would be reluctant to merge completely unsourced info. Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think the term is clear enough but there's not really any analysis of it beyond the DICDEF which is already well coverd on it's corresponding page at wikitionary - this article appears to be an attempt at bulking out that entry. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article is my start. I thought it got deleted last time. I can't argue with the DICDEF rationale against it, other than to say that it's a concept that needs an explanatory link, both for its military and political uses. Do as thou wilt. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have found numerous sources describing military/political organizations as "paper organizations" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) but nothing analyzing the term. I don't think there's much to build a Wikipedia article out of, but with some more digging, a sentence or two could potentially be added to the Wikitionary entry. Mooonswimmer 18:52, 6 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 Barlaston#Parish council. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barlaston Parish Council[edit]

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

Lowest-level local government authority in England - there are more than 10,000 parish councils and they are rarely notable. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. No secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Barlaston I agree small parish councils generally don't need separate articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The parish council is already covered at Barlaston, so there's nothing to merge from what I can see. AusLondonder (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 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!} 06:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barlaston#Parish council. I agree with the nom in that it is not a notable entity and merging in entirety and then covering all future elections I think might be a bit WP:UNDUE. As it's already covered on the proposed target article, I think a straight redirect will suffice and is appropriate. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:11, 4 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 diplomatic missions in London#British Overseas Territories. Owen× ☎ 14:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Representative of Anguilla, London[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No sources at all other than a listing of diplomatic missions in London. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party coverage to meet GNG. Article merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#British Overseas Territories. That already contains the address so there is nothing to merge, but given the list does exist there is no benefit in deletion over redirection. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe a redirect is necessary here, this is not a very plausible search term. AusLondonder (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I firmly disagree, we have content about this topic so it benefits us to make that content easy to find. If the topic was notable enough for an article it would be at this title, so this is a search term people will likely use to find it, and the presence of the redirect will discourage recreation of an article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 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!} 06:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Thryduulf's rationale. I was on the fence between that and a straight delete, but it's probable it may serve usefully as a search term on occasion, while the presence of a redirect may, as noted above, discourage recreation. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:18, 4 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!} 05:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M.G Hkh[edit]

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

Subject does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Zimbabwe. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject fails NMUSIC and GNG. -Xclusivzik (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:MILL, lacking SIGCOV, and doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:NMUSIC & WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as managing to failing NMUSIC, GNG, ANYBIO, MILL, SIGCOV, and GNG. Wow! Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be retained as it documents the Zimbabwean notable rising rapper M.G Hkh, and many others may be interested in his profile too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TakuChiwanza (talk • contribs)
- That essentially amounts to a WP:USEFUL arguement, which is general not considered to be good.
Speedy delete: Created by Prince peter moyo. Seems like it's an autobiography of a non-notable individual. dxneo (talk) 07:04, 8 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. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Park Harriers and Tower Hamlets Athletics Club[edit]

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

Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have remotely enough coverage here to meet NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, bar for coverage is clearly met with over 500 newspaper matches (see [34] and [35]). The component club has existed since 1926 and is home to Olympians and World Championships medallists. Also, when nominating an article, please add relevant WikiProjects to the talk page so that it will be properly categorized by the WP:ARTICLEALERTS bot. --Habst (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a lot of trivial coverage and mentions in articles about related topics. Where is the significant coverage? AusLondonder (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first match from the London Evening Standard is about a murder in a park this group runs in? Do you honestly think these kind of mentions establish notability per WP:ORGCRIT? AusLondonder (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder, some of the sources definitely establish WP:ORGCRIT. I agree that the London Evening Standard murder coverage isn't significant, but that still leaves over 499 matches to analyze. For example, [36] [37] is more than a mention. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 17:16, 4 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!} 05:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is less than a month old, needs improvement but meets WP:N Orange sticker (talk) 16:35, 4 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!} 15:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khadija Mbowe[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a YouTuber, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for YouTubers. As usual, YouTubers are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but three of the seven footnotes here are the subject's own self-published content about themself on YouTube or their own website, and one more is a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organization they've been directly affiliated with, all of which are primary sources that are not support for notability at all.
Meanwhile, the other three footnotes are a Q&A interview in which they're talking about themself in the first person (which would be acceptable as verification of additional facts after GNG had already been covered off by stronger sourcing, but is not itself contributing to passage of GNG as it still represents the subject talking about themself); one brief glancing namecheck of their existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something other than themself, which isn't support for notability; and just one source that's actually represents third-party analysis about Khadija Mbowe in any meaningful sense, but is too short to singlehandedly clinch passage of GNG all by itself if it's the only strong source in the mix.
Obviously this is without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when an article can be sourced better than this, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, nominator said it all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per a very detailed nom FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: When creating the article, my main rationale for notability wouldn't be based on inherently being a YouTuber, but I've rather tried to find enough WP:SIGCOV. Here are some other sources that mention them ([38][39][40][41][42][43], although I'm aware some of them are passing mentions). --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of those count as SIGCOV for a biographical article, they're either very passing mentions or listicles without any depth to write an article from. AlexandraAVX (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 13:00, 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!} 05:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON at best, the youtuber doesn't have that many subscribers or viewers. We need neutral sources that aren't fan posts. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not qualify for an inclusion in Wikipedia. As said by the nominator, it is decorated with lots of primary sources that neither prove notability nor show significant coverage, per WP:GNG. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are coverage but not in-depth enough. Might be TOOSOON. X (talk) 00:53, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. K. Infradream Limited[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found routine mill news articles, mentions, nothing showing this meets NCORP, or SIGCOV meeting GNG. // Timothy :: talk 05:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timonthy, can you please help me in improving this article. I am still looking for reliable sources for this article. I am editing this article again, please let me know whether it meets Wikipedia criteria or not. GrooveGalaxy (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:52, 4 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!} 05:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ebb and Flow[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced article. I couldn't find any significant coverage on the web; it's tough to search for them as their name is shared with a few other groups, but by including band members I found only a very brief Q&A on sfgate.com and an album review on aural-innovations.com, neither of these seem like WP:SIGCOV and nothing in the article suggests notability per WP:BAND InDimensional (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. InDimensional (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as they do have a staff written AllMusic bio here which states that they had a nationwide tour which is one of the criteria at WP:NMUSIC. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 18 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!} 22:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's just not enough to pass WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist but it's looking like No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The thing about NMUSIC is that it says artists who meet one of the criteria may be notable, not that they must be notable or must have articles. If you have a nationwide tour but fail to generate any press, that's practically the definition of failure to be notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:42, 11 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. But a Merge and Redirect may make sense. Please start a discussion on the talk page if you support this option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lion mask[edit]

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

Long-time unreferenced article. I am not sure if there is an overall concept/topic of 'lion mask' or sources to show its notability. Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This does seem to be a recognized motif in art. That was just from the first few hits for "lion mask" + "motif" on Google books, there are quite a few more. I wouldn't oppose it being merged into something but there does seem to be discussion and analysis of lion mask motifs. Admittedly there isn't a lot of useful content here, but something can be said about the topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a nice base article to work from. A stub, but an encyclopedic stub. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if we're going to keep it, could we at least find some sources to cite? This article has gone entirely unreferenced since its creation almost twenty years ago. Any decent sources would at least demonstrate that it's a distinct topic worthy of inclusion somewhere in Wikipedia. This AfD would seem to provide a good opportunity to locate some. P Aculeius (talk) 11:48, 13 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!} 23:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and section redirect to Cultural depictions of lions. Noteworthy, possibly notable, but better off as a section of a larger relevant article. BD2412 T 01:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no issue with the suggestion to merge. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The lion mask seems to be a notable concept in art/history as per sources cited above. Cortador (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cortador ... did you mean keep? Voting delete and then saying right after you think it's notable confuses me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. That was supposed to be a keep. Cortador (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've found some additional sources, and incorporated them. There's still room for expansion, but I think the article clearly meets the criteria for keeping. P Aculeius (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please review the new sources added to the article recently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be notable, and the article seems to have been improved a bunch Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:33, 5 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Party of Labour Basel (founded in 1944)[edit]

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

Delete or draftify. Being an orphan for a long time and lack of sources. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 04:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Switzerland. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 04:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now expanded and sourced. So it's not very easy to source the article, but we can understand that a party that emerged in 1988 and whose importance declined significantly by 1991 would not have a lot of google hits. With access to news sources from 1988-1991, there would be more material. However the PdA 1944 had representation in the cantonal legislature up to 1992 and should thus be considered as notable. Moreover PdA 1944, as it existed as the Basel section of PdA prior to 1988 had legislative presence in earlier periods. --Soman (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've seen your previous comment at the talkpage, yet I still focus on the quality. So I withdraw the proposal. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 14:30, 4 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!} 04:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Peter's House Hospital[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found routine local mill news articles, mentions, nothing showing this meets NCORP. Coverage found is mainly about the closing and possible replacement. // Timothy :: talk 03:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Medicine, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure how accurate the article is. It was a care home when it closed and not a hospital, and look like it was owned by the local authority. Current sources don't identify it as having been a hospital, nor a NHS connection. It was St Peter's Manse before that (1957) according to excerpt from A History of Stromness 1900-1972 by George S Robertson, ex Provost. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:32, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacopo Bocchi[edit]

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

Rugby player who played 12 seasons in the Italian league. However, all I was able to find were transactional announcements: renewal, renewal, renewal, renewal, release. Perhaps he has a nickname he goes by? JTtheOG (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. The sources used are not entirely reliable and enough to show notability. Some sources only make a trival mention of the subject. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 00:14, 5 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!} 02:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanette Coron[edit]

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

The subject appears to fail to meet the GNG or any suitable SNG. Running a before using Google News results in only a list of quotes from the subject. When filtering out quotes leads to a single website which only attributes another quote to the subject. Broadening the search to Google generally only provides links to social media, links to purchase books authored by the subject, and links to listen to subject's music. Page creator found 2 sources, [44] and [45], both of which are press releases and so are ineligible for establishing notability. I do not believe there is any suitable redirect targets. —Sirdog (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Bands and musicians. —Sirdog (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've verified the above and not found anything different. Global and Mail looks like it might be an RS, but it clearly marks both these pages as press releases. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Stated clearly in the sources provided that it's press release. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. @T.C.G. [talk] 09:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear press releases which are not independent. Else, there is a quote in Newsweek but that isnt significant coverage Robertjamal12 ~🔔 09:36, 5 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 Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician)#Speaker tenure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to remove Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House[edit]

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

Unlikely to result in any action. The vast majority of references do not pertain to the topic directly. This could be merged. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:45, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Don't you think it might be a bit WP:TOOSOON / WP:CRYSTALBALL to say it's unlikely to result in anything? Hey man im josh (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Far-right Republicans and Democrats opposed to Johnson's tenure do not have enough strength in numbers to oust him. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Events, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Rather ridiculous when the background is longer than the content about the subject itself. Content belongs at Mike_Johnson_(Louisiana_politician)#Speaker_tenure until a split is actually warranted. Even if a vote happens (and likely fails), it doesn't inherently need its own article – WP:TOOSOON to have one! Reywas92^Talk 15:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mike_Johnson_(Louisiana_politician)#Speaker_tenure per nom. and Reywas92. Simply a a case of WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice against re-creation should future RS-based coverage warrant it. Sal2100 (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the article about Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician)#Speaker_tenure. The motion failed, so it doesn't merit its own article. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak draftify. This article is not ready for mainspace and shouldn't have been moved. Coverage is pretty routine. However, I am of the opinion that once a vote occurs it will almost surely meet the GNG. This AFD will almost certainly be open by the time the vote occurs. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to House Democratic leaders, "If she invokes the motion, it will not succeed". A vote to remove the speaker of the House is not notable. A removal is. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles like Efforts to impeach George W. Bush and Barack Obama which were also never voted upon. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 16:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Efforts in the title. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that a vote has a occured. But even without a vote occuring, these sources are probably good enough for a keep [46], [47], [48], [49]. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, While a vote has occured, I feel that many parts of this article could be kept elsewhere. At the same time, I feel like the vote to table the motion itself could be kept on Motion to vacate the chair#Filing against Mike Johnson (2024). I would be open to bringing the article back if additional votes to remove Johnson are held, and/or if he is removed from office.Talthiel (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Merge/relocate content?
this could all be explained in varying detail between the following articles:
SecretName101 (talk) 02:06, 9 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 television stations in Maine#LPTV stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WEXZ-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Maine. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in Maine#LPTV stations: 2010s-established LPTVs that have only ever carried full-time national services are not going to have much chance of attaining significant coverage these days, and there really isn't much to say about them anyway. (As it is, a good chunk of the history section is about the station owner, not WEXZ-LD itself.) Note that this title was originally a redirect to the list of Retro Television Network affiliates when we still had one, but we no longer do. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:24, 4 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!} 02:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East Asian identity[edit]

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

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern European identity. Similar to the Northwestern European people, Eastern European people and Eastern European identity articles by the same user that have also been deleted, this similarly written article has the same problems. WP:SYNTH + WP:REFBOMBED issues where the article just references random articles with the phrase "Eastern European" in it. NLeeuw (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. NLeeuw (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @SunDawn, Hemiauchenia, Mzajac, and Bearian: for your consideration because you participated in the 2021 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern European people (and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern European identity) written by the same user. This AfD is a follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article lacks a fundamental underlying coherent concept. Its just a refbomb of random papers that happen to use vaguely similar terms. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - unlike the other deleted articles, there is at least a reason this could exist, but this article has no coherent whole. It's more of a synthesis. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has no more justification than Eastern European identity. Theoretically, a proper article might be written about both (not sure what it would look like, but I wouldn't exclude the possibility a priori). But in the current state, this one deserves as much WP:TNT as the previous. NLeeuw (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:22, 4 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Teague[edit]

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

Teague fails WP:NBASIC and WP:GNG; I couldn't find any reliable sources with significant coverage of him, besides a Russellville, Arkansas mayor (which obviously isn't this subject). ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, although Teague isn't covered very much, I think we can attempt to salvage this article using a few sources from here first. GoldRomean (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I started this article on this award winning gymnast. Moondragon21 (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable gymnast who won a medal at the Trampoline Gymnastics World Championships and European Trampoline Championships. There are definitely sources out there [50][51]. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MoviesandandTelevisionFan's source and no doubt we could find a third one for GoldRomean's search too. This would satisfy GNG and NACTOR Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:36, 5 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. Star Mississippi 01:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhivehi Wikipedia[edit]

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

No non-primary sourcing. Sohom (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Maldives. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a subject that has been covered in-depth in reliable sources. Geschichte (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @Sohom Datta and @Geschichte.

48JCL talk 17:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage. Interesting, we get to vote to delete one of the very sites we're editing on. But rules are rules. X (talk) 22:52, 6 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!} 01:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Swiss Super League broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Switzerland. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 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!} 01:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Super League broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are archived pages of primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and India. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 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!} 16:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nemzeti Bajnokság I broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Not a single source in any shape or form. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Hungary. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - similar case to List of Serie A broadcasters and List of Bundesliga broadcasters. No justification for a stand-alone article here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 5 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!} 01:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Lopes[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:FILMMAKER or WP:BIO. The subject has coverage only for winning a private island. No other significant coverage on his works or states any importance for an article. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 09:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 09:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLP1E. None of the sources are reliable and independent, except CBC, so by definition this isn't significant coverage. What's left is a single incident that has no lasting legacy or coverage. I add that we very frequently delete articles about producers, directors, and DJs, all of whome are run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only significant, secondary, independent sources are all rehashes of the same story and cover Lopes in the context of the competition he won. Simply participating in or winning such competitions, lotteries, and game shows does not make one notable. Per the CBC article, Lopes "makes video content for businesses by day and is a DJ at clubs and private parties by night". He is far from being a notable filmmaker or DJ, with 0 coverage of his "works". Mooonswimmer 18:42, 6 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!} 01:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunarso[edit]

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

No significant coverage or importance on the subject to have an article. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. There is no allegation of notability. What have they done beyond working in business? Bearian (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a president director of a prominent bank does not confer automatic notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:05, 10 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!} 08:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Dror[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are atrocious and consist mostly interviews, passing mentions and tangenital links and profiles. scope_creep^Talk 14:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourcing meets WP:GNG. --Omer Toledano (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--היידן (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has at least 3 solid GNG references. I didn't review all 57 references, but if some or even many have the problems described in the nom, that is not a reason to delete the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000, Would you care to list your three "solid" references? Regards. X (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sofiblum (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:SPA and has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Account has made thousands of edits on the Hebrew Wikipedia though. Doesn't seem like a problem Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know the problem because you only started in Afd on the 2 May 2024 and you've never written any large articles of consequence to discover the problem. The reason its a problem is because the English Wikipedia has a much higher standard of notability requirements that most of other wikipedias and that includes the Hebrew Wikipedia. The reason for that is the paid-editing hassle that began in 2008 and ran for many years before it was fixed, that eventually led to much improvement in the BLP notability criteria, to a much higher standard than other Wikipedias. So that is reason for it. So for that editor to turn up, who hasn't edited any length on Wikipedia and doesn't know criteria is a real problem. While anybody can turn up and !vote, the statistical chance of somebody from the Hebrew wikipedia, coming to en Wikipedia, selecting this article and then coming to the Afd, minutes after I posted it, is almost zero. It does not happen. It indicates canvassing, orchestration, which is illegal on Wikipedia. It indicates that the group is working against Wikipedia, breaking the Terms of Use, and its is unfair and downright crass. scope_creep^Talk 17:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Politics, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll look at the references, all of them this weekend, including the 3 supposed good references on a 30k article with close to 60 references, suffering from WP:CITEKILL. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep a very well known docial activist who had asignificant impact on the protests in Israel Hila Livne (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep. A known activist and the article has enough references. Danny-w (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor hasn't edited for months and magically appears now for some reason. scope_creep^Talk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has nearly 50k edits on Hebrew wikipedia, and stated that they translate a lot of articles, quite likely just on their watchlist Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason described above. Having 50k editor on another Wikipedia doesn't for squant in Afd. The editor took this stance in a previous Afd when the same spurious argument was made, a quantitive rather than qualitive argument. Numbers of reference do not count and haven't counted for more than decade, unless its WP:THREE. Its an argument to avoid in Afd, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. scope_creep^Talk 17:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems to be fine on WP:GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Seems to a lot of canvassing going on here, from Hebrew speaking Jewish editors again, espousing the same arguments I've heard before about being fanstastically well known and article has enough references. We will find out. scope_creep^Talk 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as though tag teaming is going on. I might have to take you all to WP:ANI, including the Hebrew admin, except North8000. This behaviour is probably disruptive. scope_creep^Talk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strike your comment, which violates WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF. The religion and nationality of other editors is irrelevant, as are evidence-free charges of canvassing. Longhornsg (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scope creep: I would like to repeat Longhornsg's request. Strike your comment. It comes across as ad hominem and racist. It has no place in an AfD. You have made several additional comments to this AfD without addressing it. Do not continue to comment here while failing to address this. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not meant to be racist. I've struck the comment, but it still looks like canvassing and this is the 20th Afd where I've seen this behaviour. scope_creep^Talk 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are all the sources perfect? Absolutely not, the article needs work. Does coverage of the article topic in RS satisfy WP:GNG? Yes. Longhornsg (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was reviewed at Afc by 4 seperate editors who found it wanting before I rejected it. To say it needs work, is the understatement of the century. scope_creep^Talk 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep, seconding that. As an AFC reviewer myself, I don't think articles like this one would have or should have gotten through. And it didn't by anyone from AFC, but someone totally independent of it all of a sudden moved the draft to main space. I'd personally strongly discourage moving pages that are ongoing AFC material/submission. It defeats the entire purpose of the project, especially so when it was declined multiple times and clearly had, still has a lot of issues. AFC was started for quality control and reducing AFD's like this. X (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known activist. The very fact that he has been interviewed repeatedly by the mainstream press is convincing evidence of notability. Non-notable people are not sought for interviews. Moreover, there is no rule against using the content of interviews in BLPs. The strictest rule is WP:ABOUTSELF which allows such material. Zero^talk 14:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your a bit out of date, aren't you. Certainly your allowed to use interviews in biographical article, but per consensus there must be other supporting coverage. It is a list of interviews and nothing else. Anybody can get interviewed by anybody and make a list of interviews. scope_creep^Talk 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply not true that anyone can be interviewed multiple times by the press. And you need to read WP:BLUDGEON (and learn how to spell "you're"). Zero^talk 15:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets looks at the references, to find these three elusive WP:SECONDARY sources.

Ref 1 [52] This is exclusive interview. Not independent.
Ref 2 [53] This is contributor. Its non-rs.
Ref 3 Unable to see it at the moment.
Ref 4 [54] This is another interview. Not independent.
Ref 5 [55] This is another interview style PR business article. Not independent.
Ref 6 [56] This is from a press-release. It is non-rs.
Ref 7 [57] Ami Dror, founder. That is not independent.
Ref 8 [58] Non-notable trade award. A small profile on Dror.
Ref 9 [59] His business is thrilled to annouce. A press-release. Non-RS.
Ref 10 [60] Another press-release Non-RS.
Ref 11 [61] An interview. Not independent.
Ref 12 [62] Business interview. It is not independent.
Ref 13 [63] Another interview. Not independent.
Ref 14 404
Ref 15 [64] A radio interview. Not independent.
Ref 16 Unable to view it.

Out of the 15 references in the first block, the majority of which are interviews. So nothing to prove any long term viability for this WP:BLP article. scope_creep^Talk 18:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Following references are solid and satisfy WP:GNG:

Ref 32 [65] - "Shine News" in Shanghai
Ref 33 [66] (Hebrew) - in Calcalist
Ref 30 [67] - in Israel21c

Kindly retract your deletion request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting these @Omer Toledano:. I will take a look at them.

Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is not idependent.
Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either. Its is him talking.
Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is not independent.

None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creep^Talk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They satisfy WP:GNG and that is sufficient enough. Kindly retract your deletion request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

Comment Some discussions mentioned requirements from WP:NCORP WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. These are requirements for using special Notability Guideline "way in" for Companies/Organizations. This is an article about a person, not a company or organization. The applicable standards would be to pass either the sourcing WP:GNG (the center of the discussion here) or the people SNG Wikipedia:Notability (people) (not discussed here). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: The article mixes WP:BLP and promotes a stong business content via PR which are pure spam links and that one the reason that it was repeatedly declined continuously on WP:AFC. It has been established practice since about 2018 and is consensus to note these when it fails a policy, even if its WP:NCORP. The PR spam link reference make up a tiny number, less than 3-5% of the total. There not independent. scope_creep^Talk 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for posting these @Omer Toledano: in the spirit they are intended. I will take a look at them.

Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is a promotional PR piece and is not independent.It is a WP:SPS source.
Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either.
Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is non-rs.

None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creep^Talk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

Ref 17 [68] Another interview. Its not independent.
Ref 18 [69] Another interview. Seems he was the bodyguard of Netanyahu.
Ref 19 Non-rs
Ref 20 Non-rs
Ref 21 Unable to view it
Ref 22 [70] Its a passing mention.
Ref 23 Non-rs
Ref 24 [71] It is a profile. It is junk social media. Non-rs.
Ref 25 [72] Essentially a passing mention.
Ref 27 [73] "Ami Dror, said in an interview with CNET" Not independent.
Ref 28 [74] Doesn't mention him.
Ref 29 [75] It is a passing mention and is not significant.
Ref 30 Duplicate of above. PR
Ref 31 [76] A small profile. Not significant.
Ref 32 Described above as PR that fails. It is a WP:SPS source.
Ref 34 Non-rs
Ref 35 [77] That is a press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 36 [78] That is a routine annoucenent of partnership that fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

So another block of junk reference. Not one of them is a WP:SECONDARY source. Some passing mentions, lots of interviews, a lot of business PR and not one that satisfies WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV. The article is a complete crock. (edit conflict) scope_creep^Talk 19:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest and stop WP:BADGERING. Longhornsg (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has been linking to essays, guidelines, and policies which I feel in several cases has been incorrect regarding what they are, their applicability (including the context of where they came from) and interpretations of them. Other than to note that, I don't plan to get deeper in on them individually. IMO the core question is whether the topic/article has the sources to comply with a customary application of WP:GNG Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the WP:NCORP mentions per discussion, although the businesses are heavily promoted in the article. The rest of the reference in the 3rd tranche are of equally poor references, made up of profiles, interviews, podcast and lots of non-rs refs. It none of secondary sourcing needed to prove the person is notable per WP:BIO. Of the three criteria in WP:BIO, this person fails all of them. Up until Dror started to protest which was quite recent, he was invisible. Its all of the moment. scope_creep^Talk 14:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an AFC reviewer myself, I don't think articles like this one would have or should have gotten through. And it didn't by anyone from AFC, but someone totally independent of it all of a sudden moved the draft to main space. I'd personally strongly discourage moving pages (that can be considered contentious or have issues) that are ongoing AFC material/submission. It defeats the entire purpose of the project, especially so when it was declined multiple times and clearly had, still has a lot of issues. AFC was started for quality control and reducing AFD's like this.

Nonetheless, I must admit this is one of the strangest AFD's I've come across. So many things here feels convoluted and fishy. X (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it's come up a couple times there's one thing which I'd like to address (given that I moved the article into article space.) which is the multiple prior rejections at AFC. I've done a few thousand NPP reviews and I'd guess taken more than 100 articles to AFD so I'm no pushover. I'm also an AFC reviewer, but ~95% of the reviewing I do is NPP. (I didn't use the AFC tools available to me for the move on this one.) The official AFC criteria for acceptance is that it has a reasonable chance of surviving an AFD. There has been considerable discussion of this at AFC talk, including concern that some AFC reviewers were declining based on criteria other than this. And the relevant AFD criteria is wp:notability which requires that it pass either a relevant SNG or the sourcing GNG. The SNG criteria has not been invoked leaving the sourcing GNG as the criteria. And this requires typically 2 GNG references. The first AFC decline/ draftifying in essence said that they looked at a sampling of about 10 (of the many dozen references) and there weren't GNG references in that sampling. The criteria is that it has GNG references, and a look at only 20% of the references does not determine that they don't exist. The subsequent reviews not only did not make such an analysis, they simply referred to the first decline in essence saying "no change since the first decline". IMO it has suitable GNG references, and much stronger than the typical standard at AFD, which is the basis for my actions, just trying to do the correct thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment/response. However, I've asked you earlier in the thread to care to list at least 3 sources which you've found/consider the best? Regards. X (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a clear majority of editors who want to Keep this article, there are editors who believe the sources do not establish GNG with SIGCOV so this isn't a slamdunk close. If editors arguing to Keep this article could find more significant sources, this discussion might be closed relatively soon. But this is not a Vote Count.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Desertarun (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both for what should be happenning here and also for where I want to invest my scarce wiki minutes, IMO this needs to be about folks determining whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist, rather than an analysis of my review. For folks making that determination, there's a lot to look through in the article and elsewhere; here's a few places they might want to start: [79] [80] [81] . Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have made a quantitive versus a qualitive argument in this comment and the last comment. Wikipedia strives for quality at every level and for some reason, you decided to support this article even when 4 other AFC editors in good standing decided it was junk. You have rationalised somehow that those other editors didn't make a proper WP:BEFORE review, before declining which is both disengengous and a failure of WP:AGF. Your essentially stating they have a lower standard of reviewing at AFC than yourself, yet you can't identify here what is good source amongst all these low quality sources and offer 3 paid for PR sources as though they valid, the best there is. It is an extremly poor argument for a supposed NPP reviewer in good standing, that fails WP:AGF in disparaging four good editors, one of which is myself who has written close to 750 articles (you have written 17 small article) and has almost twice the number of edits as you. Current consensus regarding WP:THREE, which changed last summer at a WP:RFA and is now considered best practice, is three WP:SECONDARY reference. Even though you happen to provide three reference for other editors to examine, which are extremely poor. I don't have confidence in you as an NPP reviewer. Lets looks at these references:

[82] This has video shot by the Shine company, where Dror does an another interview. It is classic PR where he WP:PUFF's himself up. That is not independent.
[83] The images come from Leaplearner which is Dror's company. It is PR and is not independent, failing the criteria.
[84] The images here have been provided by Dror. Its states it clearly. It is more PR and is not independent. His business partner states: "Hussein tells ISRAEL21c. “People like us have a responsibility to do something big." That is not idependent either. Its is a busines PR article. Its may be non-profit but it still not independent. scope_creep^Talk 17:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far no indepth, secondary, independent coverage has been offerered. scope_creep^Talk 18:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with many many elements in your post, include IMO mischaracterizations, ad hominem approaches and many which I consider to be out of bounds regarding Wikipedia behavior. It's not my MO to pursue such things. I'm not going to engage further on that and am content to let others decide on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One quick exxtra note, having images supplied by or credited to the person in the image is common, not something that deprecates the published piece that it is used in. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article feels as odd as this AfD, to be honest. From a business point of view, I'd be a clear delete - I agree with scope_creep's analysis of the WP:THREE sources presented by North8000. It does seem like he could be a notable protestor, but the best-looking links I can see are either Youtube videos or interviews, not significant coverage. And there looks like some paywalled articles I can't access which might be significant coverage. I wouldn't have accepted this at AfC, it needs a complete re-write, it reads like it's written close to the subject, it's badly source-bombed, but it's not clearly not notable. I'm really not sure how to !vote here on notability grounds but notability isn't clear from the time I've spent parsing it, but if you made me make a decision about this one I'd draftify it. SportingFlyer T·C 04:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From where did you get the idea that interviews are not significant coverage? How many non-notable people are regularly sought for interviews? Moreover, what someone says about themself in a interview is covered by WP:ABOUTSELF. Zero^talk 07:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews aren't significant coverage for WP:BLP's. Interviews can't prove notability for BLP's and that has been consensus for more than a decade. They are WP:PRIMARY sources. I don't know where you get this idea that is both misleading and disengenous that WP:ABOUTSELF seems to trump WP:BLP and WP:BIO. It is a complete of misreading of policy and completely out of date. I've done 1000's of Afd and I've never read anybody making a statement like that. Never seen it mention once. More so, concering your comment above, We live in the age of internet and youtube where folk with millions of followers get interviewed on the most banal things and that is seen by quanities of people that even in the golden age of mainstream press in the 1940-60's, could never compare. It is a false argument. There is no analysis here to show Dror has lasting notable, by secondary sources, the standard way of measurement of notability for people. It's Dror showing up at the camera and talking, for every reference. Its all surface and no depth. scope_creep^Talk 08:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all applications of WP:ABOUTSELF are to primary sources, so that's not a valid argument. (Anyway, that is about the reliability of the content of the interview, which is different from the reliability of the interview itself.) As for interviews, it is not the mere fact of an interview that proves notability but the independence of the venue and the reason for the interview. If a journalist goes to an event and interviews whoever happens to be there, that obviously does not indicate notability. Nor does an interview sponsored by the interviewee. But if a journalist specifically seeks out a particular person to interview for publication, that is an obvious case of notability indicated by an independent reliable source. The independent reliable source in this case is the journalist and their news outlet. Notability is also indicated if the journalist's report emphasises the notability. So it is incorrect to just dismiss interviews out of hand; instead they have to be examined for their circumstances. I don't see any such examination here. For example, dismissing this as non-independent as you did is wrong unless Judy Maltz works for Ami Dror. By the way, your signature is ugly and visually annoying. Zero^talk 10:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying the newspaper and the journalist in this case are somehow exceptional and should be reliable in this instance, even though time and history has shown that argument to be be wholly false, in any number of ways, i.e. subject to human vagaries of corruption, incomeptence and all the other problems that beset humanity, human bias and political favour. There is no basis argument for that on Wikipedia. This is another curious and unusual fringe argument that I've not seen. For me, its never been the channel nor the venue that is important but the source that provides the information and whether another source reflects that information, making it uniquely idependent of the first, that is important in WP:V. That is whole reason for WP:SECONDARY sources. The argument has been reinforced at every level in my whole Wikipedia existance, right back to 2005. Its has no validity. scope_creep^Talk 11:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only time I seen that argument is in talk pages when its been used to support using some information like the date of birth taken from a twitter message or linkedin profile, not for a mainstream BLP article. scope_creep^Talk 11:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a logic error in confusing the reliability of an interview article (which means the interview is correctly reported) with the reliability of the interview content (which means the person being interviewed told the truth). There is no contradiction in a reliable interview article quoting the interviewee telling lies. The notability tick is placed if the interview article is reliable. Articles by journalists in respectable newspapers are one of the sources most commonly accepted as reliable in WP. In this example, as Haaretz has always been considered reliable, this is assumed to be a reliable report. Whether the things that Dror told the journalist are reliable is irrelevant for notability and thus irrelevant for AfD. (I would be happy to cite Haaretz in our article with attribution to Dror, but that's another argument.) Incidentally, I was already an admin when you joined WP so you won't get anywhere with the longevity argument. Zero^talk 12:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is complete nonsense. Yes, its true that newspapers are generally a good source, I use them all the time, but that covenant only holds when when there has been research by the journalist to construct the article not to turn up and ask a few questions of the interviewee and convey it verbatim. To say such a statement makes me question your competence. It is a not question of reliablity anyway. I never questioned that aspect in all the comments above. The problem is independence. There is not a single piece of information here that doesn't come directly from Dror. Thereis no filter. There is no analysis or verification from any other source as far as I can see. scope_creep^Talk 07:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact you have no idea how much background research was done by the journalist for that article, and you brought no evidence for its unreliability. You just asserted it. Zero^talk 08:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be attempting to put words in my mouth, for the second time. I never made any mention of reliability in any argument. The problem is there is no corroborating evidence to show this individual is notable, nothing. Its all comes from him talking. All of it. Its a question of independence, not reliability. Interviews don't add up to squat. I can't make any progress with you. I suspect your involved somehow with your Freudian slip above, saying "our" article. Your views are diametrically opposed to the majority of folk who write content of Wikipedia and expect to work inside consensus. I'll not make any other comments to you, from this point forward. scope_creep^Talk 14:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When reviewing articles about people for GNG, I always discount interviews as non-secondary sources as required by GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 07:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid the context creep which might be starting, here was the context of me mentioning those three sources. "IMO this needs to be about folks determining whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist.....For folks making that determination, there's a lot to look through in the article and elsewhere; here's a few places they might want to start:" So it was nothing more than that, it was not explanation of my own overall opinion on "whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist" North8000 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, my opinion on an answer to that question is a strong "yes". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I see WP:THREE invoked I always assume it's because the three sources presented clearly pass GNG, which I do not believe was the case (they all just sort of quoted him.) As I noted I'm not really sure where to fall on this, but if there are three that stood out which clearly pass GNG, I'd be happy to switch my !vote to a keep. SportingFlyer T·C 07:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarifying, I did not bring up that essay, nor say that my assessment was based just on those three. It is based on going through a few thousand articles during NPP reviews and taking about 100 to AFD. GNG sourcing in this article is far stronger than a typical kept bio article; conversely criteria and application advocated by someone here would have about 3/4 of Wikipedia's bio articles deleted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't do a WP:BEFORE on it. Your joking? scope_creep^Talk 14:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your insulting comment is doubly out of line. WP:BEFORE refers to person doing the AFD which is you. Secondly, I never said that anything that you could derive that statement from, even if it was applicable to me (which it isn't). You need to ease up on things regarding other editors here, to put it mildly. North8000 (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with that statement on 3/4ths of bios being deleted based on these "stricter" standards. The sourcing for this particular article just isn't that great. SportingFlyer T·C 17:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look pretty WP:GNG solid to me:

Ref 3 [85] - Haaretz
Ref 32 [86] - "Shine News" in Shanghai
Ref 33 [87] (Hebrew) - in Calcalist
Ref 30 [88] - in Israel21c

--Omer Toledano (talk) Omer Toledano (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all interviews with the subject, they don't pass the secondary prong of WP:GNG, and only Ref 3 is different from the one North8000 presented. They're also all business interviews, which can be solicited by subjects for marketing purposes (not insinuating this is the case, and WP:NCORP doesn't apply because it's a biography, but similar precautions need to be taken here). If he passes WP:GNG, it's likely because he's been covered independently as a protestor. SportingFlyer T·C 17:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omert33, Ref 3 (Haaretz) is mostly an interview with 2 short paragraphs of texts followed up by primary elements, it's just him talking about himself and his activities. Ref 32 (Shine News) is also more of the same. Ref 33 (Calcalist), is even a more prevalent interview, from the starting paragraph. Ref 30 (Israel21c) is also like the rest here. X (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: The "3/4" was just my off the cuff guess. On your last point, I never said that the GNG sourcing on this article was great, just stronger than average. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added references (notability):

Ref 14 (current) [89] - The Times of Israel
Ref 36 (current) [90] - TechCrunch

-- Omer Toledano (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are passing mentions and Techcrunch is trash. Nobody uses it except UPE editors. Both of the again are not independent, more evidence to show that it all comes from Dror. scope_creep^Talk 12:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gonna keep this short since we're at the 7-day deadline, but I find myself agreeing with scope_creep's source analysis more than anyone else's. The sources presented by Omert33 are passing mentions or not independent. Interviews usually are not independent from the subject, and they lack the kind of analysis and critical assessment we usually find in WP:RS. A final thank you to the closer who decided to reopen this to let me !vote. To the nominator, consider a renomination with a source assessment table if you choose to renominate this. Pilaz (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am not convinced by any of the 'keep' arguments above. There's some vague waving at GNG by a number of participants (importantly, note, this does not include North8000, who has engaged in meaningful discussion regarding GNG to justify their position), but when asked to present sources that meet the GNG standard, I agree with scope_creep's analysis of any such sources presented in response. Beyond that, there are a number of straight votes (eg. היידן, Sofiblum) and other arguments to avoid that I'm sure will be discarded by an experienced closer (eg. "a very well known docial activist who had asignificant impact on the protests in Israel", "A known activist and the article has enough references"). I also do not accept that being interviewed contributes to GNG (they are acceptable sources for information, yes, but do not contribute to assessing notability), and community consensus at deletion discussions in recent times has generally also found in this manner (WP:PRIMARY explicitly notes this consensus in a footnote). I agree with North8000 that this should be judged against GNG rather than NCORP, although I understand scope_creep's point that there is a strong mix of CORP about this article - but ultimately it is a biography and I agree with North8000 more on this. Daniel (talk) 08:06, 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. It's unanimous. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina M. Barkume[edit]

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

Rejected speedy deletion. Non notable academic. Fails GNG, WP:NACADEMIC Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Astronomy. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After a 2008 PhD, she has no non-student publications in astronomy (there is one on social media monitoring with many authors and low citations). She does not appear to have a subsequent academic career of any note, and instead has been working for Meta (for which she has no significant publicity). Her best first-author student paper, "Water ice on the satellite of Kuiper belt object 2003 EL61", has only double-digit citations, not enough to make a case that she was such an exceptional student as to be notable through her student work. So although I agree with the A7 decline (the bar is very low for that) I do not think she can be notable through WP:PROF nor through WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the analysis of academic publications above. For other AfD reviewers interested in more context, there seem to be some brief mentions in various outlets from 2006 and 2007, e.g., these Sky & Telescope articles from April and October 2006, this AAS meeting brief from October, and this New York Times article from March 2007. Best, Bridget (talk) 07:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, I think you meant to link this AAAS article, which mentions her, while the one you linked does not. BhamBoi (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nice summary by David Eppstein. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not satisfy WP:NPROF; discovery has not received significant coverage. Qflib (talk) 20:12, 7 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. Ultimately, User:BusterD is correct, sources must be present in the article or brought into the discussion. A "There must be sources" attitude could be used to justify an article on any subject imaginable. We have to deal with information available now, that exist during the course of this discussion, not at a hypothetical future time. This deletion doesn't disallow the future creation of this article should adequate sources be located. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andras de Lisocky[edit]

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

Fails WP:NATHLETE, WP:GNG. Only source included is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Colombia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think WP:NATHLETE is not the appropriate policy because de Lisocky is not a track and field sportsman, road racer, or cross country runner. De Lisocky is a gold medalist at a major international competition, so I do believe that we can be confident that contemporary coverage must exist. Finding those newspapers / other sources may be difficult, but we have to at least put in an effort. --Habst (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Bolivarian Games is not a major international competition. It is a smaller event with 6 participating countries. The Pan American Games would be the major competition in this case. Geschichte (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, how is the Pan American Games relevant to this deletion discussion, because the athlete did not participate there? I agree that the Pan Ams are also a major international competition, but there is no rule that there has to be only one major competition in the world. For someone from Colombia, the Bolivarian Games are certainly one of the biggest competitions an athlete could win outside of the Olympics (which he also competed in). Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant because you claimed that he is a "gold medalist at a major international competition", which is an uncorroborated claim made by an anonymous person on the Internet, i.e. you. The South American Games also has sailing and is a lot bigger in scope than the Bolivarian Games. Geschichte (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, thanks for your response. Both the Pan American Games and the South American Games are also major international competitions, but their existence does not invalidate the fact that the Bolivarian Games are, as well, a major competition. To qualify this with a source, see Rengifo, Lisandro Abel (2022-06-26). "Juegos Bolivarianos: ¿sí tienen la importancia que dicen?". El Tiempo (in Spanish). Retrieved 2024-05-02., which asserts that the Bolivarian Games are crucial to advancing to the Olympic Games and are a major competition. That isn't an uncorroborated claim; it's sourced to reliable news sites. --Habst (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 02:18, 2 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!} 00:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to notable event. More unsourced Lugnuts nonsense. A series of articles written solely to populate a list on an Olympic event page. Just because it's true doesn't make it notable. Those who disagree are required to bring sources to prove that assertion of notability. All these stubs should be sourced sufficiently or redirected to the event. BusterD (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD, thanks, what do you think about a procedural keep because the nomination used an invalid criteria (WP:NATHLETE is intended only for track and field / cross country / road racing athletes, not sailors)? --Habst (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correctly pointing out the nominator used an imprecise shortcut doesn't help the subject meet notability by the correct guideline. The nominator's assertions are 1) doesn't meet the criteria for specific notability, 2) doesn't meet general notability, and 3) only applied source was a bare mention. These assertions go unrefuted in this process. The correct SNG link is WP:SPORTSPERSON, and that guideline (amended specifically to deal with lightly-sourced Lugnuts-type creation) tells us at least one reliable source is required which directly details the subject. Can anybody present one? BusterD (talk) 15:02, 10 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. Owen× ☎ 22:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deon Kraemer[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Ineligible for PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Amature player with minimal coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The stub of an article provides no evidence of notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:13, 11 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. A discussion about a possible Redirection can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States of America Computing Olympiad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated a year ago and the result was no consensus, because an organization that is the main feeder competition for the IOI has to have sources. I agree, but really, there is nothing, I've tried. I propose redirection to International Olympiad in Informatics. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Education, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a couple of news sources I found (however, they aren't in-depth):

- https://www.oregonlive.com/my-north-of-26/2015/06/daniel_chiu_from_catlin_gabel.html

- https://www.ahwatukee.com/news/article_ae8b9bf0-f355-11e4-a52a-a7cc90dfff19.html

- https://scnow.com/news/local/clemson-university-to-host-usa-computing-olympiad-for-top-high-school-students/article_b3187844-0e21-5ed9-877c-8158b66bc8f9.html Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 16:49, 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!} 00:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Staraction's sources. I feel there aren't too many sources outside of WP:PRIMARY, but what they provided, looks like it's enough. Conyo14 (talk) 00:45, 5 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!} 00:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Hey there) Little Miss Mary[edit]

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

Article about a song, not properly referenced as having any serious claim to passing WP:NSONGS. As always, songs are not automatically entitled to have their own standalone articles just because they exist, and have to show and reliably source some claim of significance -- but the main attempt at a notability claim here is that versions of the song appeared on albums that had gold certification as albums, which is not in and of itself evidence that the song has its own standalone notability independently of those albums, and the article is referenced entirely to primary source directory entries that are not support for notability, with not a whit of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about the song in media or books shown at all. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the song from having to be the subject of reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2024-04 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 4 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!} 00:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of songs written by Roger Cook and Roger Greenaway.Delete per nom Fails N:SONG. Redirecting to List of songs written by Roger Cook and Roger Greenaway is a potential alternative but the article only seems to include notable songs, which "Hey There, Little Miss Mary" is not. Mooonswimmer 18:36, 6 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× ☎ 00:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Beaudoin[edit]

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

Biography of a former mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they existed, and have to pass conditional notability standards based on the depth of substance that can be written about their careers and the volume of sourcing that can be shown to support it -- but this, as written, is basically "mayor who existed" apart from a section that advertorially bulletpoints a generic list of "achievements" without really saying or sourcing anything whatsoever about what he personally had to do with any of them, and minimally cites the whole thing to one primary source self-published by the city government that isn't support for notability at all, one unreliable source that isn't support for notability at all, and just one hit of run of the mill local coverage upon his death that isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source in the mix.
Trois-Rivières is a significant enough city that a mayor would certainly be eligible to keep an article that was written substantially and sourced properly, so I'd be happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to the necessary resources than I've got can find enough GNG-worthy sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more substance and sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Here's a decent French newspaper account of him being on the job for 10 years [91] and a Radio Canada piece about him, 50 years after he was elected [92]. I think we have enough for basic sourcing, with sustained coverage over the past half century or more. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG.Rustypenguin (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has 2 refs that indicate notability. Desertarun (talk) 19:21, 3 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!} 00:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting GNG, good sources. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:38, 5 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenji Tohira[edit]

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

A Japanese racing driver. Page fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Doesn't have much beyond when he was born and died, and some scores. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 18:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~for lack of viable press and statistical content other than subject's death. Ernesto Wong, another recently deceased sports figure, nominated for the same reasons.~~ Changing to Keep after digging up of sources. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 21:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page on Japanese Wikipedia appears to be more in depth and has more sources than the page here currently has. I was initially going to withdraw this nomination but I think even with those sources the page still doesn't qualify for WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 18:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is dailysportscar a good source? If you take his name in Japanese and search for it in Google Books and Google News a bunch of results pop up. Dude was born in 1941 so there is probably more coverage of him on paper than digitally. as-web.jp is also a good in-depth source. Polygnotus (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good sources on the Japanese article as noted above. Also [93] Odd that this was nominated the day after his death, but from his obituary in Chunichi Shimbun: "1960年代後半から高橋国光さんらとビッグレースに参戦。スカイライン2000GT－Rで通算4勝を挙げ、フェアレディ240Zで日本グランプリを連覇（71、72年）。90年代にはN1耐久シリーズや全日本GT選手権にも参戦した。" Lots of other obituaries in outlets in Japan (from what I can dig up on noticeboards, it appears obituaries in national publications count towards notability?) including this particularly indepth one. Here's a piece from 芸文社 [ja] discussing his car in the 80s. It appears there's a feature on him in the 2022 issue of RacingOn magazine. Another piece from 2019. Agree with Polygnotus that there's likely a lot of coverage that has not been digitized since Japan is only now partially undergoing digital transformation. DCsansei (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep refs look good to me. Desertarun (talk) 19:22, 3 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!} 00:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DCsansei. What's with the trend of nominating long retired Japanese race car drivers, less well known in the west. This is now the third I have to put my vote in. Japanese Wikipedia shows that he has a well accomplished career being the 1994 Super Taikyu champion. A database listing on JAF will prove this otherwise, thus passing WP:NMOTORSPORT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
additional comment: IIRC, he was one of the works Skyline GT-R racers of the early 1970s (though not as notable as Takahashi, Hasemi and Kurosawa), thus he is bound to be notable by that association. Additionally, he is known for being one of those in Nissan's celebrated 50 consecutive race wins (by C10 Skyline GT-R) they like to promote. Thus, this is another. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:25, 10 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!} 00:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunaina Chautala[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and generally WP:GNG. Being a candidate for the imminent general election in June does not automatically help the subject pass WP:NPOL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NPOL. Mooonswimmer 19:31, 6 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.