Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 06	May 08 >

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!} 23:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ExoClick

AfDs for this article:

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

Page seems to just be an advert page for the company, was created by them and they are very minor Firestar587 (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company; I found only trivial coverage in trade journals. JSFarman (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just an advert. Desertarun (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of islands of the Philippines#Luzon. as an ATD Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palumbato Island

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

While I can verify this island exists, and has a name, and it even has weather, there seems to be no other information about it that I can find. It doesn't appear to be populated. It doesn't appear to pass WP:GEONATURAL or WP:GNG.

There is a Lsjbot-created article about the island on the Cebuano Wikipedia: ceb:Palumbato Island GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Philippines, and Islands. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEONATURAL is one of the lowest notability hurdles on the site. There are two scholarly articles I can find in English and one book on the island's geology, but they're just blurbs: [1], and mentioned several times in Tectonic Significance of Basement Complexes and Ophiolites in the Northern Philippines (Geary, 1986). There are also several books with instructions on how to navigate around it when piloting a boat which describe it. It is also just over 100m long at its widest point. I think the most correct thing to do is mention it at Tailon Island, which has a lighthouse and should be notable, and a quick search shows may have been renamed, but no one has written that article yet, and there's not a whole lot more there to be honest. SportingFlyer T·C 03:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My searches have failed to produce any evidence of coming anywhere near of satisfying Wikipedia's notability requirements, and the article itself provides nothing other than the fact that the island exists. JBW (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_islands_of_the_Philippines#Luzon per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Elihu Root Collection of United States Documents Relating to the ..., from 1908 mentions the island, as one of 3 small islands of the Tanao Islands. Perhaps better to move to Tanao Islands and describe the three islands together? The book has a brief description of the nature of the island "Palumbato, the western island, is 49 feet high, bare and conspicuosly flat on top". --Soman (talk) 00:57, 2 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!} 23:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could not find anything other than the very existence of the island. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 05:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments above Okmrman (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. There seems to be some agreement that there's unnecessary duplication between the various articles listing equipment, but no consensus as to which should be the primary article for this list, with at least three different pages proposed here. Discussion on a selective merger should continue on the respective article Talk pages. Owen× ☎ 11:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish military aircraft

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

This list is unnecessary duplicate of Polish Air Force#Aircraft, List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces#Aircraft and Polish Navy#Aircraft. I don't see any good reason to such duplication, given that duplication is generally discouraged in Wikipedia as duplicate articles is difficult to maintain, and also outlined in WP:DUPLICATE.

Aside of duplication issue. It seems the duplicate article is created to trying to work around the consensus to not put aircraft image into the inventory table which was recently informed to creator of this duplicate article. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: If the list is only duplicate to either Polish Air Force#Aircraft and List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces#Aircraft, then I would suggest to merge/redirect to one of them per WP:MERGEREASON. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note (2): the article is now also duplicate with to Polish Navy#Aircraft, so the lead sentence is revised to reflect this duplicate. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note (3): also tried WP:A10, but was blocked. lead sentence is rewrited to remove duplicate arguments. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, Lists, and Poland. Skynxnex (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this should be deleted, then be consistent and recommend the deletion of:

Because individual lists exist for each branch, and then another summary exists. The problem of the list in the other pages is that it lacks details, and people don't want additional details there. At least here, there is more clarity.

If the images are a problem, then it should be a problem with

Fabrice Ram (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, if it was really a duplicate then it may be on my next to do list. Afeterall, I do have history to remove duplicate table Air Force inventory table in the past, such as Yemeni Air Force, Gabon Air Force, Indonesian Air Force, and more. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is longer and has pictures. So against redirecting it there. Also there are over a hundred articles like this. Category:Lists_of_military_aircraft. Dream Focus 04:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focusre: This article is duplicate of Polish Air Force#Aircraft and Polish Land Forces#Aircraft and Wikipedia in general is against duplication articles. Regarding images on table, we have a consensus to not put aircraft image into the inventory table, and intentionally ignoring the consensus may be considered as disruptive editing. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You link to a discussion had in 2015, with 4 wanting to get rid of images like this, and 1 wanting to keep it. So 5 people decided something in a two week discussion most never noticed, 9 years ago. I think a new discussion is warranted with greater participation, and not just about aircraft, but list of tanks, ships, and whatnot. Dream Focus 08:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that consensus can change per WP:CCC. However, until new consensus reached, it doesn't means we can disregard existing consensus. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The presence or absence of photos is irrelevant re AfD. @Ckfasdf: put the "disruptive editing" cudgel away. // Timothy :: talk 15:29, 2 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!} 22:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This topic is different the other ones and therefore, this isn't a WP:CFORK. It would correspond to other articles that Fabrice Ram cited, like List of active Russian military aircraft. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zakaria1978: If we look up Russian Aerospace Forces, Russian Naval Aviation and Russian Ground Forces, we'll notice that none of them include aircraft inventory tables. Instead, all Russian military aircraft are listed in the article titled List of active Russian military aircraft, hence no duplication issue or not WP:REDUNDANTFORK. However, this differs from the approach taken in Polish military articles, where each branch has its own aircraft inventory table: Polish Air Force#Aircraft, Polish Land Forces#Aircraft and Polish Navy#Aircraft. These tables are duplicate information found in the List of Polish military aircraft. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Content is well sourced, I can't see merging with parents due to size, community consensus accepts these military equipment lists generally meet notability requirements. I do think the duplicate lists in the individual branch articles should be removed and replaced with a hat pointing to the appropriate spot in this list, eg: rm Polish Air Force#Aircraft and replace with hatnote to List of Polish military aircraft#Polish air force. // Timothy :: talk 07:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue: The existing parent articles (such as Polish Air Force, Polish Land Forces, and Polish Navy) already contain lists of military equipment. According to WP:SIZE, a WP:SPINOFF is warranted only if there are concerns about article size. However, the parent articles size are not excessively large, ranging from only 250-350kB. Therefore, there appears to be no necessity for a WP:SPLITLIST at this time. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is not black and white, there are plenty of gray areas where an issue is either up to editorial discretion or community consensus. In this case their is a community consensus that these lists (Lists of military equipment) are generally notable, useful for readers, and having the information in one place is easier to keep updated. I see no reason to have this information split into multiple articles. The editors in this thread seem to agree. // Timothy :: talk 15:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that not everything is black and white, plenty of gray, and there are even times when rules can be ignored per WP:IAR, there must be a compelling reason to justify such exceptions, like bypassing WP:SIZE guidelines. While the List by itself is generally notable, the issue at hand involves potential duplication. If we look up other Air Forces pages, it's evident that out of 147 Air Force articles, 128 integrate the inventory table into the air forces article itself, while only 17 opt for separate presentation, including as a List. This indicates that the most common or preferred approach to displaying aircraft inventory table to readers is within the air force article itself. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Transclusion can be a solution if keeping material current is a concern. See List of active United States Air Force aircraft. Schierbecker (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a very well phrased rationale; issues have been identified, alternatives have been considered, and deletion has been requested in accordance with our policies and guidelines. The only reason to keep would be to merge it properly by removing the texts from the 3 source pages and removing the images as demanded by Convention. NLeeuw (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet. The nominator might have more success with a compelling Merger proposal rather than a strong demand to delete an article that other editors find appropriate. But without providing a new perspective, this discussion is verging on bludgeoning.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to this list
- (preferred) either just List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces#Aircraft (Polish Land Forces#Aircraft doesn't exist) and Polish Navy#Aircraft, since they're subsidiary elements of those branches, and have a hatnote pointing to Polish Air Force#Aircraft, or
- all three to here. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: As I mentioned on the lead, if the list is only duplicate to either Polish Air Force#Aircraft, List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces#Aircraft, or Polish Navy#Aircraft, then I would suggest to merge/redirect to one of them per WP:MERGEREASON. But, they are three different list belong to different branch of armed forces. And 128 of 147 Air Force articles integrate the inventory table into the air forces article itself, which indicates the most common or preferred approach to displaying aircraft inventory table. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:52, 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 MTV Splitsvilla#Season 1. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Splitsvilla season 1

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

A list of 20 contestants, only 2 of whom have their own pages, plus details of who they were "dumped by" is essentially a summary-only description of a work. This season of the show is not notable independently of MTV Splitsvilla, and there's no content here that couldn't be merged to that article.

I'm creating an AfD rather than boldly redirecting etc. as MTV Splitsvilla lists individual pages for 15 seasons so think it's worth a discussion. Feedback welcome on whether this is the right approach. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, India, and Goa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MTV_Splitsvilla#Season_1. Seasons for same show do not need to have separate pages. RangersRus (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MTV_Splitsvilla#Season_1: Per nom. Not enough content for a stand alone article. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion. Have editors looked at this redirect target? It's a blank section on this article point to the page you want to delete. You're advocating redirecting an article to just a header on an article. This doesn't seem like the most sensible resolution. How about a Merge consideration?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry, I wasn't clear. I'm suggesting MTV_Splitsvilla#Seasons overview as the redirect target for MTV Splitsvilla#Season 1 (and other seasons), and removing the headers for each season. The "seasons overview" table seems to sum up all the content that would be merged anyway. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to MTV_Splitsvilla#Season_1. All seasons 1 to 15 pages should be merged with necessary information. RangersRus (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief properly sourced summary to MTV_Splitsvilla#Season_1 per above, nothing meeting WP:SIRS in article or found in BEFORE to support a stand alone article. // Timothy :: talk 14:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Laghari

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not meet the WP:AUTHOR, as none of their published works are deemed significant enough. Additionally, they do not fulfill the basic WP:GNG. Their roles, such as serving as chairperson of the Sindhi Language Authority or as a secretary in provincial government departments, do not meet the threshold for WP:N either. I previously nom. it for deletion, but the BLP was ultimately retained due to a lack of discussion. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject lacks relevance for an article, and it appears all references are outdated. Crosji (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Megoulianitika

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

Article consists of a single sentence of content, along with two Greek books. Dispute whether this is enough to make the article notable. Danners430 (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Danners430 (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-ones by European artists

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

I am not convinced that this is a notable topic, and is confusing as it is 'by Europeans' but excludes the British. Boleyn (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there are many Brits who do not see themselves as European, that's how Brexit happened... But anyway, surely this is original research and fails WP:NLIST, especially as it has no sources whatsoever. Jan Hammer might have been born in Czechoslovakia but I would assume he had obtained US citizenship by the time he made his no. 1 record, which begs the question of inclusion criteria here. I assume the British acts were excluded because there are enough of them to make their own list. But List of Billboard Hot 100 number-ones by British artists has the same issues, but is even more problematic – would anyone really consider "Party Rock Anthem" by LMFAO or "One Dance" by Drake to be included on a list of British artists, just because of a small feature on the song by a Brit? Richard3120 (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable trivia. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable cross-section of attributes. A failure of WP:LISTN. Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as a bit broad in scope to satisfy WP:LISTN. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how it's any less notable than the article for British Artists or Australian artists. And the article is very useful, I stumbled across this discussion after specifically seeking out this article because I knew it had the relevant information I was looking for. Deletion would be an immediate hindrance for users like myself who rely on wikipedia for lists like this. N1TH Music (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone established that the British/Australian equivalent lists are notable though? Your argument seems to hinge on that unproven point... Sergecross73 msg me 01:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I checked them, and they're largely unsourced, so it's going to take more than a simple look at these other articles to be persuasive. Sergecross73 msg me 15:09, 6 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!} 23:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three valid deletes, a comment about how problematic it is, and a WP:VAGUEWAVE WP:ITSUSEFUL keep comment, and a consensus couldn't be found Liz? I respect your opinion... but this one feels like an open and shut case, both conceptually and in practice... Sergecross73 msg me 11:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73, I'm not the only closer here who patrols AFD discussions. Any other closer is free to close this discussion when they see consensus. In fact, we could use more discussion closers if you are interested in helping assessing deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, I was just surprised by the relist when there were five participants, four in agreement, and zero valid keep stances given. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not encyclopedic. Desertarun (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Rahm

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. Made some Google research about him. I can’t find any sign of notability or reliable source talking about him. Meligirl5 (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Meligirl5 (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sexuality and gender, California, Georgia (U.S. state), and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:33, 1 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!} 23:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched for info under Johnny Rahm and his non-stage name Barry Rogers. Other than the one source cited here as #1, I could find no other sources. Most personal bio facts in this article can be sourced to that one article. I was not able to confirm his acting award, but due to the lack of other sources I do not think we have reached GNG. Lamona (talk) 04:02, 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. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chak No.15/GD

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable village. Sources fail to provide any context whatsoever, and only show a list of numerous villages. No evidence that a standalone article is needed. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POPULATED which states Census tracts, abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GEOLAND - it is a populated place and is also a union council [2]. 103.126.219.248 (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That source is actually the same one that was added to the article. Only shows an extensive list of villages without providing context on any of them. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify it does appear to exist per google and bing maps @ 30°57'58.3"N 73°28'00.7"E (also several roads confusingly all labeled "Chak Number 15/GD Rd"). It has quite a few buildings including a mosque and two schools so possible is notable per WP:GEOLAND. However the first source does not mention and the second says "CHAK 15/1R" not "CHAK 15/GD" so effectively unsourced. KylieTastic (talk) 15:21, 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!} 23:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Horner (actor)

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

Wining just the AVN award still doesn’t mean his notable. Subject still fails WP:GNG. Can’t find any news about him on Google. Maybe that was why no other references were made to the article than the current of which they are three but still doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Meligirl5 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Meligirl5 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Oregon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:36, 1 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!} 23:19, 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. ✗plicit 10:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Nielsen (Sonic Negotiator)

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Largely by a single editor with a declared COI. The single reference and most of the external links do not mention Nielsen. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 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. ✗plicit 01:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mako Hit List

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability. Zero sources except for their own website. The only content is from their own website. I looked and could not find any independent coverage, much less GNG coverage. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Internet, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's quite clear that there is no evidence of any sort of notability. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 23:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say more than this, Aydoh8, this isn't really a useful assessment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources cited in the article are independent, and a quick Google search doesn't show any WP:HITS outside of their own website minus a YouTube video and Facebook page both by Mako themselves. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 21:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Fritz

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a South African rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:05, 23 April 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) 21:05, 23 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!} 22:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ebrahim Etemadi

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

Ebrahim Etemadi likely doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, the mentioned sources might not be reliable enough. Waqar💬 19:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Music. Waqar💬 19:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Three of the citations presented (2 Farsi and 1 Enlglish) seem to be OK. The Persian version of this has 17 citations and I saw some Ok ones there, such as 1, 2. We can't just assume because something is in a foreign language, it is unreliable. He seems to be well known in his country.Yolandagonzales (talk) 09:09, 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!} 22:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 18:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sausalito Yacht Club

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

Run of the mill local yacht club. Does not meet NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and California. Graywalls (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most of the article is also uncited and appears to be OR. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 23:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to MTV Splitsvilla#Season 12. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Splitsvilla season 12

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

Pretty clear failure of WP:GNG. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 23:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into MTV Splitsvilla. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 23:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MTV_Splitsvilla#Season_12. All seasons 1 to 15 pages should be merged with necessary information. RangersRus (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to MTV Splitsvilla. It is not notable enough to published into each different season.Sameeerrr (talk)
Merge with MTV Splitsvilla: Not enough to show this season is notable by itself. Ravensfire (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Lubao#Notable schools and colleges. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lubao Institute

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

Fails WP:NORG/WP:NSCHOOL. found no independent sigcov online. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lubao#Notable_schools_and_colleges per WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethnolinguistic regions of South Asia

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

WP:OR WP:UNSOURCED WP:NPOV. Completely unnecessary generalisations about which regions supposedly "belong" to which "ethnic groups" just because their native languages are widely spoken there. This is ethnic nationalist nonsense without any encyclopedic value. All the relevant information has been gathered much better in articles such as Ethnic groups in South Asia, Languages of South Asia, and so on. NLeeuw (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Ethnic groups, Geography, Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and India. NLeeuw (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and good case made by NLeeuw. Poor sources, editorial bias and problem with verification. RangersRus (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I have to emphasize once more that a list or article that relies on a single source, or no sources, is essentially original research. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Moomin World. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moominhouse

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

WP:BEFORE only presented trivial mentions of this topic. This article fails WP:NOTABILITY because it does not reach the threshold of significant coverage required. Jontesta (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any reliably sourced, encyclopedic content to Moomin World, where there is already discussion of the house. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Moomin World Per Dclemens1971. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 23:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Moominvalley, or disambiguate with links to the real-world houses in Moomin World, Moomin Museum, Moominvalley Park, and Akebono Children's Forest Park. Goustien (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Comics and animation, and Finland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively as suggested. It's too poorly source to stand alone. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Land of Ev

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

Topic does not reach the threshold of significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:BEFORE only presents trivial mentions. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Jontesta (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are five pages specifically about Ev in the 1997 book Oz and Beyond: The Fantasy World of L. Frank Baum. There is also a 2009 journal article, "Philosophical Adventures in the Lands of Oz and Ev". Both of these are currently used as references in the article. Toughpigs (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims that were pointed out by @Toughpigs:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Refs are good enough. Desertarun (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BARE. This AfD reminded me of the land of Ev, which I had read about as a child in several Oz books. It's more than trivia, and discussed in several good sources, although the article could use some editing down. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Krypton (comics). If editors would like to Merge some content or select a different target article, feel free to have a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rao (comics)

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

Non-notable topic currently composed of unreliable or primary sources. A google search showed only trivial mentions, no significant coverage in reliable sources. My assessment is that it does not pass WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: R in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Krypton (comics) where it is already mentioned throughout the article. The primary topic for this is the fictional star that Krypton orbited before its destruction, not the handful of extremely minor characters that shared its name. That fictional star is also not notable beyond its association with the extremely notable fictional planet, and does not warrant an article split off from there. Rorshacma (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Krypton (comics): A single respectable source is not enough to justify an separate article for this fictional star and god. There are no other reliable sources that discuss them in detail. In any case, everything in that source could easily fit in the article on the fictional planet. Since nothing in this article is properly sourced, there is nothing to merge here. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Omori (video game). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omocat

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

Omocat is not independently notable of Omori (video game), and the majority of sourcing in this article is about the game and not Omocat beyond some passing mentions. WP:GNG failure. λ NegativeMP1 21:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. λ NegativeMP1 21:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations 2, 3, and 4 are all about OMOCAT themself and not specifically OMORI. Additionally, OMOCAT has their own successful individual page on the Japanese Wikipedia.

OMOCAT fits the notability requirement in that "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." The articles and reviews about OMORI itself fit the requirement: "such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work". Because of this, it's significant to mention OMORI as it is their most well-known work. Their fashion line, independent of OMORI, has garnered attention in the U.S and Japan, hence their article in Japanese Wikipedia. Alexapar21 (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Omori~~ Omori (video game). It is a common mistake to assume notability is inherited from something a developer created, however the developer has to have standalone notability, which this developer does not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am assuming that the intended redirect target would be Omori (video game) (which OMOCAT in all-caps redirects to) rather than the Omori disambiguation page. (I don't have any other opinion or comment beyond that at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Omori (video game) The coverage about Omocat mainly stems from her Omori work, her other ventures have received little coverage that is not PR. Jumpytoo Talk 05:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Omori (video game). Notability is not inherited. Charcoal feather (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zashko Films

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Most of the press I find is a mention of the company in articles about films it was involved in, but nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Possibly redirect to one of the films as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, United States of America, and Texas. CNMall41 (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found mentions and listings, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 17:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Wakefield Trinity players. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Moules

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

Redirect to List of Wakefield Trinity players. Poorly sourced rugby BLP. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT as all I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Two seasons (one at top) isn't a notable career.Mn1548 (talk) 13:16, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retro (DJ)

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

No sign of notability, searching for this guy returns basically nothing, and the three sources hardly qualify for WP:GNG (one of them is a YouTube video). Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Music, and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree that this fails GNG. I've only been able to find three mentions other than his own site.^[1]^[2]^[3] None are significant coverage. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Batte, Elliott. "Dappy Unveils 'Good Intentions' Video - Watch Now - Stereoboard". Stereoboard.com. Retrieved 2024-05-08.
^ "RIO's not so Unpredictable future". 2010-08-03. Retrieved 2024-05-08.
^ "Dappy debuts new single 'Come With Me'". Digital Spy. 2012-06-27. Retrieved 2024-05-08.

Delete - not a single reliable source. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft Sales & Services (Pvt.) Limited

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

I don't see this Pakistani charter airline meets the WP:NCORP The article relies on non-independent and unreliable sources and press releases. Fails WP:GNG as well. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of notability and coverage in reliable news outlets --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)--扱. し. 侍. (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NERV (reactor)

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

I can't find significant coverage of this. Google Books or Scholar for "natural endogenous respiration vessel" come up empty. Google is mostly Wikipedia mirrors, and a thesis by a student of the inventor. Perhaps this topic doesn't meet our notability criteria? Ajpolino (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Kvng who de-prodded this article. Ajpolino (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A quick Google scholar search turned up only a single result that didn't even show the term natural endogenous respiration vessel. Clearly fails the GNG. Ships & Space_(Edits) 20:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a patent. No refs. Desertarun (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Fasano

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

Doesn't seem to fall under the general notability guidelines, and does seem to be mostly promotional fluff. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Various biographies and routine business moves, nothing notable for this C-level exec. Even in Gnews, it's all PR items. Nothing for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudi Britz

(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. All I found were trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page definitely fails to meet any sort of independent coverage standards, and it is extremely unlikely that the page (1) currently offers or has the potential to offer encyclopedic quality on a notable subject, (2) holds any sort of public notoriety apart from mere occupational trivial mentions, and/or (3) exists in such a manner that readers would find sufficient coverage to go by, of which there is absolutely none. There simply aren't any other sources, and I certainly can't see a reason this article could theoretically make the grade under any circumstances whatsoever. TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of premium large format cinema screens in the UK

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, Lists, and United Kingdom. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dozens of hours went into gathering this information that otherwise isn't in an accessible format anywhere on the internet. It's carefully sourced and cited and all of these are notable in their own right (premium format screens make up less than 1% of all cinema screens in the UK). There are literally dozens of far less useful articles that are untouched. In particular there are hundreds of lists of shopping malls in different countries on Wikipedia that are clearly tolerated by the rules. What makes this list fundamentally different than a list of shopping malls?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridges_in_the_United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_railway_bridges_and_viaducts_in_the_United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shopping_centres_in_the_United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shopping_centres_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_size

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shopping_malls_in_France

143.58.201.143 (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, WP:HARDWORK and WP:MERCY aren't useful as keep arguments. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 143.58.201.143 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While we're drawing attention to single purpose accounts, I note that Spaced Farmer has made few or no other edits to any other topic on Wikipedia. Almost the entirety of their 2,000+ contributions were for the single purpose of getting articles deleted. 143.58.201.143 (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost the entirety of their 2,000+ contributions were for the single purpose of getting articles deleted not to take this to far off topic but looking at their x-tools (here) less than half their edits have been to the Wikipedia name space, with about a third of those going to deletion sorting. All of which is to say they are obviously not a WP:SPA Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep rationale. The vast majority of citations are to directory-type entries at imax.com, and I could find no source that discusses the topic of the list as a group (the closest I could find is: [3]). If someone really cares about finding premium format screens in the UK, there are better places (such as imax.com) to find that information; WP:NOTDIRECTORY. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and/or WP:NOTDATABASE Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List provides context with specific technical information. Encompasses more than just imax theaters, and sources more information than imax.com provides in their directory (which also is a search only directory). The list is limited in scope, and it appears to have been steadily improved with sourcing and links to wiki articles about the theaters. Sourcing is still limited and overly reliant on imax.com and the remains of lfexaminer. Further context and links to wiki articles are needed. Worthy of improvement, but in my reading of WP:NOTDIRECTORY it does not fall to the level of an overly broad contextless “phone book” list. FriendlyToaster (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This discussion is mentioned off-wiki here and here Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and/or WP:NOTDATABASE too. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE. Let'srun (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTDATABASE, cited only to primary sources, doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Wikipedia is not a web host and there are plenty of other places to store random lists. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fancruft meets Listcruft. Wikipedia is not a directory, this list needs to pass NLIST, nothing found in the article or in BEFORE that show this has been discussed as a group. Nothing in the article indicates it serves a navigation purpose. No sources found in the above Keep fanspam and the canvassing is obvious. // Timothy :: talk 17:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 1984 AFC Asian Cup squads#United Arab Emirates. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bader Ahmed Saleh

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We used to keep footballers who had played 2 or more professional games, so I am guessing this article got in with the old rules, but now it must be removed as there is no coverage about this person.Hkkingg (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1984 AFC Asian Cup squads#United Arab Emirates as possible search term. Giant Snowman 20:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above seems like a fine alternative to deletion, there isn't much written about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Like Horny Bunnies?

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

fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with two sources; they might be hard copy, but they help the article pass, and there are surely digital sources out there easily. Nate • (chatter) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above analysis is in error: both print sources in the article are WP:TRIVIAL mentions of the title in a listed example of adult games, they fall clearly short of WP:SIGCOV and do not establish WP:GNG. Without doing a WP:BEFORE, stating digital sources out there might establish notability is a WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. I have looked on WP:VG/SE and the Internet Archive and could only find a situational source review from Jason Venter of Honest Gamers here. One review is not enough coverage to substantiate notability. Maybe there's much more in terms of WP:NONENG sources out there. As ever, happy to change my view if more reliable coverage is found. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Both the game and its sequel got reviews from Absolute Games (review for 1 here, 2 here). Waxworker (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great find! If there's one more out there, that seems comfortably notable for me. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WIRED article and book excerpt are not actually about the game, but about eroge in general, and mention the game trivially. One Absolute Games review is not going to cut the mustard. MobyGames only lists said review and Animetric, and I am unsure of the reliability of the latter. An Internet Archive search also had only trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 07:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vrxces's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ZyX (brand) the developer as ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 05:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: How do the delete !voters feel about a redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ZyX. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails per WP:NONENG, WP:VG/SE, WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST, WP:BEFORE, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:TRIVIAL. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is WP:NONENG relevant as a deletion reason? Charcoal feather (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Googling the Japanese name, エッチなバニーさんは嫌い, within archive.org netted at least two cases of apparent Japanese nontrivial print coverage – Game Criticism Vol. 39 (July 2001) p. 107 and BugBug 2001-05 p. 56.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 08:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Favor redirect to ZyX over delete, but weak keep either way, per WP:ATD-M and WP:ATD-R. I looked at LaukkuTheGreit's sources and both of them definitely look like WP:SIGCOV. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolute Games review & the 2 Japanese sources are just enough to meet GNG. -Mika1h (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming the Japanese sources offer significant coverage. If not kept should be redirected to ZyX (brand) as an ATD. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the print sources Laukku found constitute sigcov, and should together with the other be enough to meet GNG.--Alexandra^IDV 07:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this now meets GNG after considering Laukku's sources. Charcoal feather (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John E. Deaton

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is about a cryptocurrency lawyer who has announced a campaign for Elizabeth Warren's US Senate seat. He doesn't have any particular awards or distinctions as a lawyer to and I can't find enough press coverage to merit an article based on WP:GNG. He hasn't yet been elected to public office and so doesn't merit inclusion on those grounds. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Note the WP:AFD discussion two months ago - nothing material has changed that I can see. Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Cryptocurrency, Law, and Massachusetts. Skynxnex (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, what happened here was that User:Dema9049, the article creator, blew off the prior AfD result of redirect, restored the article, the redirect was restored, and Dema9049 reverted the redirect, claiming "The AfD did not provide signification [sic] reasoning for this person to be deleted." That assessment was not theirs to make, obviously. I don't think we need a fresh discussion so much as restoring the redirect that was the outcome of the prior AfD, and to at the very least give User:Dema9049 -- whose talk page history has multiple admonitions against edit warring and template removal -- a very stern warning, and perhaps a page ban. Paging @User:Liz, who did the close of the first AfD. Ravenswing 18:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. The only thing that made me Wikipedia:Assume good faith here was that the article text has changed quite a bit since the last AFD. But the notability of the subject of the article doesn't appear to have changed at all. Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I still don't see notability, even in the field of crypto law. He's only mentioned in passing in regards to a few law cases and there are no biographies in law journals about this person. Still a thin attempt at PROMO I think, given the recent deletion/recreation and rather passionate discussion by someone in his sphere of influence in the last AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that comes close in Gscholar is various latency simulators discussed in journal articles; I don't think they're related to this field of law, but neither is in my wheelhouse, so I don't know. Still feels like a !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's really depressing that someone can just ignore the result of an AfD and recreate the page with no repercussions. This page--which was deleted after editors agreed Deaton is not notable--has now been live on WP for almost an entire month. And I'm sure once the page gets deleted again, its creator will just publish it again, and they'll probably get away with it. Again. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:00, 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 Colors Kannada#Fiction series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antarapata

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

None of the three sources on the page are reliable as they all fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. A WP:BEFORE was also unable to find anything better than a few mentions and announcements. CNMall41 (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, India, and United States of America. CNMall41 (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: With some update with reviews and more sources other than pre-release publicity ones, this probably would be notable. Based on the actions of the article creator, moving this to draft will probably need the draft move protected and redirect created here pointing to Colors Kannada that would need to be protected. Ravensfire (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would always recommend draftify as an WP:ATD. The issue is that when that happens we have to deal with the bludgeoning of redirects and submissions without improvements from socks, IPs and UPEs. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am always game for an ATD, but seeing that creator removed the AfD template for a second time tells me we are going to have issues with this in the future unless the title is protected. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Colors_Kannada#Fiction_series: Is listed there. Not opposed to Keep (show has been running for a year on a rather important network). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Colors_Kannada#Fiction_series. Drama series was aired on Color Kannada. Not any help from sources on coverage and reception. RangersRus (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Kumar Sangwan

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Never elected into any notable political office, only being a candidate in an upcoming election doesn’t inherently make one notable. Sources from BEFORE also didn’t help as they’re either affiliated with the subject or unreliable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of his role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on him. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails GNG and NPOL. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 04:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NPOL is one of the strongest guides we have, and is unlikely to change. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship

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

Fails WP:GNG —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - This is an exchange program through the US State Department. Granted, the article needs work, and needs better sourcing. But this is a very impressive program. It would be a shame to write this off. — Maile (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some valuable links to YouTube info created by the Fellowship program. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on whe wording and sourcing. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Do Not Delete - Work in Progress: This was inadvertently and prematurely deleted yesterday for copyright errors. I am currently reworking this article in my personal user space, to avoid misunderstandings over sourcing, etc. This is an important article that needs work. Please have patience, and I'll get the article in better shape. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see you say that I "inadvertently and prematurely deleted" copyright content from Wikipedia. There's no such thing as "prematurely" removing copyright content from Wikipedia. We can't host copyright content on Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. And we can't include it in sandboxes or drafts either. — Diannaa (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Business, Education, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the article could benefit from a through revision, the subject itself is notable enough. TH1980 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I just did an edit update of this article. The lead is now more informative about how this program originated, complete with sources. And I've done a sample list of US and foreign universities which act as hosts. — Maile (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just went through and reviewed the edits made by Maile. Not a single source supports notability under WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. All sources are primary sources (e.g. the authorizing legislation), or they are not independent (State Department webpages or the webpages of Humphrey Fellowship sponsoring institutions), or the coverage is trivial (single references to someone in the article being a Humphrey Fellow). The MPR News source fails verification. My BEFORE search turns up nothing else useful for establishing notability. (One potential source is here, but it is published by a Humphrey Fellowship sponsor institution and I don't have access to the actual text to validate whether it is independent.) Failing the unearthing of significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary sources, this doesn't clear the bar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:11, 29 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) 06:07, 30 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This feels like PROMO for a US gov't program... Sourcing is solely to universities around the world, or the US gov't. I tried a Gscholar search, but anything not published by the US gov't is very hard to find. One mention of funding in a medical study, but I don't see any critical discussion of the program. I'm amazed it's been around for 40 yrs or so and there is no analysis of this fellowship. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This [4] but it's on the ed.gov web domain, I'm not sure if it's independent of the gov't or not. This [5] in a Malaysian journal... Jstor has nothing, using the Wikipedia Library link only brings up the case study listed in my first link. There just doesn't seem to be anything about this. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In reviewing additional feedback, I continue to find the rationales for keep insufficiently policy-based ("this is an impressive program," "the subject is notable enough"), while the sources (both in the article and beyond) simply don't support notability according to policy. The sources added by one of the editors arguing for keep are primary or trivial, and the Youtube links are promotional. I encourage the closer to review the sources! Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., Dclemens1971, and Oaktree b. Fails WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. BusterD (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Presbytery, Bible Presbyterian Church

AfDs for this article:

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

Micro-denomination with perhaps nine churches as of 2014, per a self-published source (citing other self-published sources) that is no longer available online. Citations are exclusively to primary sources, to self-published sources, or to outdated sources of questionable independence and reliability. Participants in the 2022 AfD discussion did not delve deeply into the validity of the sources cited as applied to WP:NORG, which I will do here:

[1]. Self-published source citing other self-published sources; not updated since 2014.
[2]. Self-published book; does not illuminate notability of subject, just reference one of its views and its existence.
[3]. Blog/opinion post; does not meet reliable source criteria for establishing notability.
[4]. Dead link with no archived version.
[5]. Book published by Redeeming the Time (RTT) Publications, which is the publishing arm of the subject and thus not independent of the subject.
[6]. Portuguese-language source; cannot tell if it is self-published. Regardless, it is not significant coverage and merely notes the existence of the subject.
[7]. OPC General Assembly minutes and thus disqualified as primary source.
[8]. Personal blog; self-published source.
[9] Newsletter published by Redeeming the Time (RTT) Publications, which is the publishing arm of the subject and thus not independent of the subject.

I cannot identify any other independent, secondary, reliable sources that verify the notability of this denomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An editor has updated the link in footnote 4 to a live link. It's here -- it appears self-published but has no author listed. It appears impossible to validate its reliability, and moreover it only mentions the subject of the article in a single trivial mention on page 96. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:53, 25 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) 06:07, 30 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pretty much fails notability as shown above in the source analysis; primary sources, blogs or un-RS. I don't find anything about this particular outfit. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 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 Rugby Football League. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League XIII

AfDs for this article:

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

Page has a single reference which is an error 404, context is minimal, and the article is missing anything the team actually did, fails WP:GNG Mn1548 (talk) 15:57, 15 April 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 April 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Rugby league. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rugby Football League. Not enough content to justify a stand-alone article in its current state, but it's a plausible search term as the team played several fixtures in the previous century against national teams such as Australia and France. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 22 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) 06:06, 30 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:59, 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 redirect‎ to List of Namibia national rugby union players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Klassen

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

Redirect to List of Namibia national rugby union players as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Namibia national rugby union players WP:GNG coverage looks to be limited. Suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested seems fine. I don't see any extensive coverage for this player. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 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.

NASCAR on television and radio

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Esolo5002 (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

~~NASCAR on television in the 2000s~~ (this article was never tagged with AFD

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, most of the sources are YouTube videos, primary sources, press announcments and do not help to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to pull NASCAR on television and radio off that list and keep the rest in. In the case of WP:ATD, merge the rest of the nominated lists to that article. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of NASCAR broadcasters as being trivial and WP:LISTCRUFT, but the others I am neutral due to the lack of knowledge on my part of whether WP:ROUTINE applies to broadcasting deals. Conyo14 (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's extremely subjective to flat out say that an article on NASCAR such NASCAR on television and radio appeals to nobody but the small minority of ardent fans. That's almost implying that NASCAR is simply a niche, fringe, cult-like sport even though its races are regularly broadcasts on major television networks like Fox and NBC. The Daytona 500, which is the biggest and most important race of the year, as in itself, been televised since at least 1960 (over 60 years now) and live from start to finish since 1979 (which is almost 50 years now). So it goes without saying, that NASCAR has always been on major network television in some shape or form since the latter half of the 20th century. Also, what exactly does it mean that press announcements and primary sources don't help assert any notability despite being "official" and therefore, presumably, "legitimate"? There are currently, 26 different sources in that particular article. The section with the Historical Race Network Table, is in particular, heavily detailed and color coded. So naturally, there's been a lot of effort and care placed in the NASCAR on television and radio article up until now. So why exactly should that just completely go to waste? BornonJune8 (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's popular with Americans and nobody can dispute that but do we need a fancrufty list of who commentated who on Wikipedia? This argument is about the usefulness of such list per WP:USEFUL as you try to imply. As I said, most of these source are now dead. This list is fit for Fandom, not Wikipedia; I recommend you go there and start your own page there. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer: I know you're interested in deleting List of NASCAR broadcasters the most of all these. Since, the sources on NASCAR on television and radio are reliable (again, not sure if the content applies to WP:SIGCOV), perhaps you could separate the list and the "NASCAR on television in the XXXXs" articles into their own AfD, thereby creating two separate AfDs. This is only a suggestion as I have !voted already to delete the list article, but remain neutral on everything else. Conyo14 (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should merged into one. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacedFarmer: Why are you seemingly limiting this to Americans when discussing NASCAR's overall popularity, appeal, and/or reach? NASCAR is an international sport as evidence by this particular page on its official website. So it goes without saying that if it's holding events in places like Mexico, Canada, Brazil, and Europe, than it can't on the most strict of terms, by solely defined as an "American sport". NASCAR overall, is said to currently be broadcast in 195 countries and 29 languages. In 2024, the Daytona 500 was said to air in more than 185 countries and territories and reaching over 550 million households worldwide. In 2022 by itself, NASCAR signed a broadcasting rights agreements with Fox Sports Mexico and Bandeirantes in Latin America. BornonJune8 (talk) 8:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Again, you are drifting this off subject. I don't need you to argue how popular NASCAR is to the world. In fact, only a tiny portion of motorsport fans outside North America watch NASCAR, any coverages of it is limited to cable. Why? I used to be one of those. I live in Europe and NASCAR was and is still and will never be popular at all compared to F1. Now back to the subject of this AfD, the point of this AfD is not about popularity of NASCAR and BS reach to the world. It's about this list being of encyclopaedic nature. This list would had passed in 2004 but c'mon, this is now 2024, times has changed. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey watch your tone there, stereotyping countries is not part of Wikipedia's foundations. I suggest you strike your comment. Conyo14 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all except List of NASCAR broadcasters, which probably works better as a category. Lots of sourcing for NASCAR on television. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacedFarmer: With all due respect, it sounds like you're seriously contradicting yourself when you tell me that you don't need to argue how popular NASCAR is to the world and yet in the same breath say that only a tiny portion of motorsport fans outside North America watch NASCAR. And then you boldly say that it is and still will never be popular at all compared to F1 and that its reach to the world is "BS". I'm not strictly talking about Europe mind you, when I discuss its international broadcasting reach. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NB: This user has a history of exclusively targeting my AfD with a keep vote, despite how weak they are. This was because I nominated one of his article for AfD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't descend into pettiness and casting aspersion. This decision will be based on consensus and the strength of arguments not who dislikes who. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

25 additional sources have just been added to the NASCAR on television in the 1960s article, bumping the current total to 48. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Confusing, potentially disruptive mass nomination based on a rationale basically covered in WP:IDONTLIKEIT ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IDONTLIKEIT? What are you talking about? Speak English? SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will wish to withdraw this nomination to renominate it again, given that one of it was not been nominated by mistake. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Boy Who Wasn't Scared to Dream

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

Self published book, fails GNG and NBOOK. Nothing in article or found in BEFORE meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 17:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Motorsport. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No book reviews that I can find, nothing on Common Sense Media. Likely TOOSOON. Give it a chance to be out in the market, might get some critical uptick. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any reviews other than The Sapling cited in the article, and the only other source is an interview on RNZ which may not qualify as a secondary source. Doesn't meet notability thresholds at this stage. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:47, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NBA music

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

Article tragically lacking in sources and dripping with WP:OR. Cleaning this up would reduce it to stub status. Few incoming pageviews. Dubious notability. I'm not finding any equivalent articles for major sports leagues. Delete. 162 etc. (talk) 16:57, 7 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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Basketball. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100% OR, with only random YouTube videos and listicles discussing the topic of "NBA Music" as a concept. Reference 3 comes close, but it is specifically about crosstalk between hip-hop culture and basketball; I guess some relevant content could be merged to Hip hop (culture). But the vast majority of the article is made-up or synthesized. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that this meets WP:GNG. Current content is WP:OR.—Bagumba (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milke Bhi Hum Na Mile

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

Fails GNG, sources in article and found in BEFORE did not show anything meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Sources in article are promo and interviews, with some routine mill entertainment news, nothing with SIGCOV from independent reliable sources. // Timothy :: talk 16:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and I did not find any reliable sources with coverage on the 2024 released TV serial. Serial is not notable. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:NTV and Fails WP:GNG.Sameeerrr (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haripriyaa Bharggav

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

Resume BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, are mainly promo bios, interviews, and name mentions in routine mill news, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 16:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would be willing to look at references that talk "about" her but everything I see it about her film (Panch Kriti), is a brief mention, falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA or is otherwise unreliable. I also do not think the film meets GNG as the page says it is scheduled to be released in 2023 and no update since. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject had no significant achievement to warrant a page on her. The "one" film produced by her is not notable either. Sources do not help. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. RangersRus (talk) 13:43, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Jonathan Deamer (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We Trust You Tour

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC, in particular WP:NTOUR: "Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." There is no coverage that shows "notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms". Choosing to AfD rather than draftify as there's nothing to suggest it's likely the tour will become notable in future (see WP:DRAFTREASON). Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Thanks for your comments, on reflection I got it wrong here. I got caught up in "notability isn't inherited just because notable artists go on tour in support of a notable album", but having looked more at other similar tour articles I realise that's not the right line of thinking here. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is very obviously reason to think this tour will become notable in the future, namely that the artists headlining it released two albums that reached number one on the Billboard 200 Mach61 19:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: WP:NCONCERT states that "Concert tours are probably notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources." Why would you look for artistic approach, financial success, and relationship to audience in an upcoming concert? We Don't Trust You debuted at number one on the Billboard 200 and top 10 on almost every album chart it charted on. Non-single, "Cinderella", peaked at number 6 on Billboard Hot 100. I'm not even gonna mention "Like That". We Still Don't Trust You also debuted atop Billboard 200 chart. Looking at the status of the on-going beef between Drake & Kendrick Lamar, this tour is most likely to be successful. There's enough coverage in RS to keep the article afloat. Although it may be canceled at the very last minute, this subject is clearly notable. Honestly, I don't know why it made it here. dxneo (talk) 06:33, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Everett

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Welsh rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I came across was this piece on an injury he sustained. JTtheOG (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Wales. JTtheOG (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Career never really kicked on to bring WP:GNG passing sourcing. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Player now in second division, likely to not generate future significant coverage. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 14:42, 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 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. Owen× ☎ 19:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imam pesmu da vam pevam Tour

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

Fails GNG. Sources in article and BEFORE did not show WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found promo, announcements, nothing meeting WP:SIRS. No objection to a redirect to Lepa Brena#Tours and concerts // Timothy :: talk 16:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 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. Owen× ☎ 19:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waggle Foundation

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

Fails the notability guideline for organisations. PROD contested, citing four sources which, upon investigation, all turned out to contribute nothing to notability:

Parade, CMT and People are puffy tabloid pieces based on a press release (People is the most honest/shameless about this: "It was such an unexpected major expense at an already tough time," Lambert, 36, said in a press release.) They don't even cover Waggle beyond the barest of passing mentions; they're about a separate fund Miranda Lambert set up in partnership.

The Day a local Connecticut newspaper writing about a local business, exactly the sort of coverage WP:AUD excludes from notability considerations.

These sources are so flimsy I am honestly a bit ticked off that the PROD was contested. – Teratix ₵ 15:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, Websites, and Connecticut. – Teratix ₵ 15:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this does not pass GNG. The Day is a moderately-sized regional paper that can count towards notability for some topics, but local-interest pieces like this do not. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet NORG, references are primary. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 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× ☎ 19:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cuza Hotta

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

Article fails WP:BIO as not notable. The current article is based on a redacted CIA report. Subject existed and was a low-level Romanian diplomat in the 1930s and 1940s, however his only claim to fame traceable in secondary sources is being the lover of the victim of a high-profile crime case in the 1930. Anonimu (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough information is available to confirm the notability of this person. Jingiby (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gave the article a chance and expanded it a bit and he appears to have done quite some stuff but there are no sources talking about it in detail so he is not notable. It would seem like Tita Cristescu has a higher chance of getting an article and if Hotta is to be talked about somewhere in Wikipedia it would be there. Super Ψ Dro 08:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no allegation of notability. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Tran

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a radio broadcaster, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for radio broadcasters.
The notability claim here, that she's been an announcer for national radio networks in Australia, would be fine if the article were demonstrating that she passes WP:GNG for it -- but notability doesn't vest in doing stuff per se, it vests in the amount of third-party journalistic coverage she did or didn't receive about the stuff she did to establish that it's been externally validated as significant, so just existing as a radio host is not "inherently" notable without sourcing for it. But this is completely unsourced, and has an overall writing tone strongly suggestive of somebody just doing a thinly veiled rewrite of her staff profile on the self-published website of her own employer (which was, predictably, the sole "source" ever previously cited here, until it got removed as a deadlink, but was never proper support for notability as it isn't independent of her).
As the content here hinges entirely on stuff that happened between 1999 and 2010, with no further updates in the past 14 years, I'm willing to withdraw this if someone with much better access than I've got to archived Australian media coverage from the naughts can find enough proper coverage to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Australia. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wedding photographer with the same name from Los Angeles is about all I can find, I don't see anything for a radio person in Australia. Delete for lack of sourcing and this article has ZERO sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Vietnam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are a number of sources out their but nothing providing SIGCOV and nothing independent. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced BLP. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Below is some of the coverage to be found in Newsbank. Just good enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmoth, Peter (3 December 1998), "Awestruck rookie is Triple J's evening star", The Age

Article on her getting 6pm-to-10pm slot on Triple J. Includes background eg Leaving Vietnam at 3, graduated from the Australian Film, Television and Radio School in August 98. Lots of quotes but IMO still good.

Dent, Jackie (5 December 1998), "No JOK: new name grabs a groovy shift on Triple J", The Sydney Morning Herald

Article on her getting 6pm-to-10pm slot on Triple J. Similar to above

Farouque, Farah (19 August 1999), "DJs of diversity overcome adversity - RADIO - Radio waves", The Age

Article about her and Simon Diaz (TT FM) reflecting "an emerging ethnic diversity on Melbourne's airwaves."

Jones, Kate (14 February 2001), "From refugee to ABC headliner", Stonnington Leader

Also published in other similar mastheads. Profile of Tran

Farouque, Farah (3 December 1998), "ABC spends its Summer in Sydney - Radio Waves", The Age

Four paragraphs in general roundup, is about getting above job.

Delete Promo BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and above do not meet WP:SIRS, containing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from neutral independent reliable sources. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How are the sources not good enough and what does the notability guidelines for companies have anything to do with this person? duffbeerforme (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides no allegation of notability, we routinely delete articles about non-drive time radio DJs. Bearian (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nishtha Desai

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

doesn't meet notability criteria Pblcpvt (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Crime, Travel and tourism, Sexuality and gender, and Goa. Skynxnex (talk) 13:10, 7 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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor proposing deletion has edited no other article. PamD 09:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have expanded the sources in the article. A multi-page chapter in a book discusses her and her work,^[1] she is widely quoted in the news thereby meeting WP:BASIC (see article for citations), she has one publication that has been reviewed (not a pass of WP:AUTHOR but contributing to notability). DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The chapter quotes her and not really a profile of her only. But possibly can be overlooked. Jgnfls (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user has a total of six edits, 5 are changes altering my additions to the Desai article and one is a comment here at AfD. Given this, and the limited editing history of the initial nominator, I am a little concerned about the interest in this article.

Regardless, the four-page long book chapter describes Desai's personality, her dedication to children, how the organization she runs has exposed the "seedy underbelly of Goal", how she got involved in the organization. There are certainly additional details about the organization, but this is certainly WP:SIGCOV. DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sardesai, Rajdeep; Ambani, Nita; Network 18 (2011-08-01). Real Heroes: Ordinary People Extraordinary Service. Roli Books Private Limited. ISBN 978-93-5194-057-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Keep. The subject meets general notability criteria.--Ipigott (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that subject meets WP:GNG as illustrated by coverage in The Times of India, O Heraldo, Oneindia, and multiple books. CaptainAngus (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to EWTN#List of broadcast television affiliates. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W09DJ-D

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Religion, and Pennsylvania. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no independent references. A search turns up no news or independent coverage - just the Diocese (owner's) page and a handful of results on AV forums and FCC filings. Not notable. Hemmers (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to EWTN#List of broadcast television affiliates, where mention of the station is already made and outside the usual splices in of local masses fed by automated cameras they just carry the network near full-time. Nate • (chatter) 16:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to EWTN#List of broadcast television affiliates: Even with a history going back to at least 1990, there's only so much that can be said about what is basically a run-of-the-mill Catholic television station reliant on EWTN product. A remnant of the looser standards of 2006; it does not need to be anything more than an {{R to list entry}} in 2024. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 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 merge‎ to Wizz Air. Owen× ☎ 19:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wizz Air Serbia

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

Merge to Wizz Air. This subsidiary does not meet the WP:GNG. Toadspike (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, Hungary, and Serbia. Skynxnex (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nomination. Cortador (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Definately not enough to have a separate article. Merge to Wizz Air. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nomination, not notable enough for standalone article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sure about merging. It lacks GNG for being merged to Wizzair. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Editors agree that this article was moved to mainspace prematurely, and should be sent back to draftspace. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. VfL Potsdam

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

Unfortunately the creating editor chose to move this draft a second time to mainspace. Under WP:DRAFTIFY it may not be re-draftified unilaterally, so we are at AfD, something which could have been avoided had they awaited a review. Not ready for mainspace, insufficient secondary sources, currently not proved to pass WP:GNG. Draftify 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Organisms, Sports, Handball, and Germany. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, not ready for mainspace. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 12:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Seems to have been moved to main space by a non-reviewer. Article is currently filled with red links. Shadow311 (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Assuming then outcome to be that this be returned to Draft, please will the closer ensure that the AFC review history is retained or that the putative draft is edited to reinstate it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyadarshini Raje Scindia

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP that makes few claims to notability other than her marriage to a notable politician. Recent coverage relates to her campaigning in the current Indian election, hardly demonstrating significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Royalty and nobility, India, and Madhya Pradesh. AusLondonder (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has done notable work for the society. (https://www.travelandleisureasia.com/in/people/interview-with-tl-champion-community-empowerment-priyadarshini-raje-scindia/). Shobhit Gosain ^Talk 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Married to politician does not establish notability. The subject has not made significant, interesting, or unusual achievement enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Fails WP:N. RangersRus (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article lacks sources to prove the subject's notability beyond her marriage to a politician. Being mentioned in a newspaper, journal, or magazine doesn't always guarantee notability. She has made little independent notable achievements for an article. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At most, this page could be merged with that of her husband. — TheWikiholic (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' per WP:NOTINHERITED. Unless she is the subject of significant coverage, see Chasten Buttigieg, a spouse of a cabinet member is not independently notable. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kehkashan Awan

AfDs for this article:

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

Another BLP on a non-notable actress created by BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) who has a dubious editing history. The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Although this topic survived a previous AfD but the discussion was compromised by sock puppets and IPs. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She was a well known actress and model in 1980s and before acting she was a model but she is best known for her role as Anji in drama Dhoop Kinaray which is considered now a classic cult.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
As the creator of this BLP, you've to provide references to support claims made about her significant roles. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:: Note: The creator of this BLP @BeauSuzanne is suspected UPE and a SPI is underway . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib unless something is confirmed, best not to mention it. One CU has already confirmed there is no technical evidence they are using multiple accounts. However, the CU did confirm heavy WP:LOUT activity so it might be fair to mention that. S0091 (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
S0091, I did wrote "suspected," not confirmed. Even if we can't confirm they're socks, one can say for sure they're UPEs. But your point taken. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, you are casting aspersions here and you have been attacking this editor on many different discussions. This is verging on blockable behavior. Content creators have the right to weigh in on AFD discussion. Focus on the arguments and sources, not personalities. Or you could be facing a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I've retracted my comment. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources are mostly about other people where Awan is only mentioned or are interviews. Jang is the only source that has coverage about her and all it says is people found her Twitter account and she's now married. Looking at the sources in the Dhoop Kinare article, none mention her outside of listing her as a cast member so it does not appear her role was significant. S0091 (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found in article and BEFORE are name mentions, listings, nothing meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 18:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PropertyLimBrothers

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

While I don't quite think the text meets the criteria of a G11 like Joseywales1961, I do believe it is in no way suitable for retention in mainspace. Perhaps I should have nominated it immediately instead of draftifying. In any case, that's now moot due to the cut & paste move back. I cannot find any sources meeting WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:ORGIND. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would say that this new article is borderline G11 (The one I CSD'd was by another different editor, something strange with different people suddenly wanting this particular firms article published) Josey Wales^Parley 18:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:ORGIND, looks like an advertisement. Dcotos (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think subject passes WP:ORGCRITE based on factual articles from reliable sources. MeltPees (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable; routine news articles (possibly SE0-crated or just paid). --BoraVoro (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Deor per criterion G7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 World's Strongest Man

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

Contested draftification. Article is unsourced and barely has any content. WP:TOOSOON also applies. CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current winner probably hasn't finished travelling yet, much less putting their trophy on their mantle. Way WP:TOOSOON. Nate • (chatter) 16:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify is probably fine. This is obviously WP:TOOSOON. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't worry about it bro. Arthini of Pompeii (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Page creator has blanked the page twice, so it should meet G7. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:08, 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horia Iancu

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

Sportsperson did sportsthing. No indication of notability. Single reference is an interview, so fails WP:SIRS, and therefore fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Romania. UtherSRG (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possible there are sources, considering he has played over 100 games for a fair sized club. If there are sources ping me. Abstain vote for now. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to say that someone with over 100 appearances for Steau Bucharest in recent times would have a lot of sources in Romanian at least, but then I realised this is for the "official" Steau Bucharest, or however you should describe the one that isn't in the top flight (not FCSB). So he has 43 second-division appearances since 2015 [6]. A pretty low contribution to the game of football. If this lower Steau Bucharest has retained the fan base (just as the official C.F. Os Belenenses did when they went down), then I estimate there would be decent coverage in Romanian sources. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Unknown Temptation: So there are two different clubs now? I am a little confused? Is the one Horia Iancu plays for operating as a B team? I am still confused here. Govvy (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are two clubs purporting to be Steaua, but otherwise unrelated. Geschichte (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not much demonstrating notability for this player. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 13:51, 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, withdrawn with no dissenting opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Sfeir

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

Fails WP:BIO. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ and never been effectively referenced. No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 09:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a journal article that describes her work (Reference 2, Harvard Educational Review), although I could only see a snippet. In a Google Scholar search at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Jacqueline+Sfeir&btnG= her name appears several times as someone being cited or described. I couldn't find an article about her in the Arabic Wikipedia, which would be at ar: جاكلين صفير I think there's enough evidence that she had a significant influence on others. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added coverage of her work from Proquest and from several books available at archive.org; these additions discuss her impact on early childhood education. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is excellent work you have done in only a day. The article is unrecognisable. Clearly notable. Nomination Withdrawn scope_creep^Talk 18:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If anyone who reads this is fluent in Arabic, please consider creating an article in the Arabic Wikipedia as well. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems ok with the new sources added, the Harvard Ed Review journal is a big help. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WOFT-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable LPTV. --Danubeball (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Easily fails WP:GNG. I tried making an online search, and I couldn't even find any significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 17:24, 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 Speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silvio Trucco

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

An article about a referee that hasn't yet meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. No too hot on Google news, the rest remains database results that doesn't also credibly discusses his role as a referee. In all, the article doesn't meet our general notability guidelines. It's sense a bit of notability but not yet. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and Argentina. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There can be challenging possibility of sources in another language but still since there are incoming links and they all need to be verified. If sources are found, ping me. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @SafariScribe:, I found [7],[8], [9], [10], [11], [12] among many more Spanish sources. Clearly siginifiant refereein Argentina who has been the center referee of many games ([13]). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pls add them to the article if you can. Thanks for this, you deserve a rock. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I withdraw my nomination Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:48, 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. ✗plicit 11:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kiolbassa Sausage

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

No evidence of notability. One source was added in response to my PROD, but both it's reliablilty and the independence of its content are dubious. Previously deleted and salted as Kiolbassa * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm landing on a weak Keep. I've added a bit, checked the refs, searched for more; there's a biz journals article that looks like it might be sigcov that I can't get to, added that into a Further reading section in case someone else can. It's got two instance of coverage by Forbes former staff, which is a bit hard to assess, and obviously it would be better if it were two different non-local sources. Lots of local coverage, and coverage in an industry mag. I guess what puts me kind of over the top toward keep is the fact it's been in business independently for 75 years, which for a food business of this type is practically a claim to notability all by itself. Valereee (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee the San Antonio Business Journal article is sub-titled "Kiolbassa CEO talks growth opportunities, company culture and legacy" and is largely what they say about themselves. S0091 (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that subtitle, but headlines can be so misleading, thanks for clarifying. It's a cusp article, I'd say. 1949 and still a family business, and of this size...that's unusual. I dunno. I will, however, definitely be having my husband look for it next time he's at the grocery. :D Valereee (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relist to get this discussion that seems to have fallen off the radar entirely back on the radar.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pppery (alt) (talk) 04:07, 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 merge‎ to Hum Sitaray. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Hum Sitaray

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

Tagged for notability since May 2016 and similar to this list, it does not have contextual information about the list as a whole, just individual shows. Fails WP:NLIST. CNMall41 (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps Redirect, broadcasts reruns from its primary counterpart samee converse 06:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hum Sitaray is the ideal solution here.Sameeerrr (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:05, 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 Zee Entertainment Enterprises#India. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Learn

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

Outside of the typical WP:NEWSORGINDIA, the only thing I find is a press run about insolvency and one about rebranding. Nothing that meets WP:NCORP. Can likely be redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises and a mention made on that page. CNMall41 (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Education, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Zee_Entertainment_Enterprises#India after including it in the list of channels. Per nom fails to meet WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 15:32, 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 merge‎ to Chris Ballew. czar 03:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caspar Babypants

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

already have Chris Ballew, his real name Coddlebean (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coddlebean (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge rather than delete, then. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Hemmers (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 delete‎. ✗plicit 10:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Representative of the UNHCR and WFP, London

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

Contested PROD of an individual office of the UNHCR. Completely fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. Zero secondary sources, only source is government listing of diplomatic missions. AusLondonder (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect. Repeating the reason I gave for deprodding this: "This should be (merged and) redirected somewhere. Possibly List of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom#International organisations but a page about the UNHCR/WFP representatives would be better if there is one". Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree there's anything particularly useful to merge. I really doubt many readers already on Wikipedia are going to be searching "Representative of the UNHCR and WFP, London" to get to a list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They won't be using this title to find a list of diplomatic missions in London, but they will be using this title to find the content we have about this topic that is located at the list page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is effectively from a search term, other than incoming links (which mostly seem to be from the diplomatic missions in London template). I'm questioning who will be using such a specific, lengthy search term. I think it's a very implausible search term. If they forget to add WFP when searching, they'll get nowhere but if they include WFP there's a redirect? That's so arbitrary and unnecessary. Keep in mind that prior to the PROD and AfD, the page was struggling to get a single view a day. AusLondonder (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article merely confirms it exists, fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or redirect as an ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom toweli (talk) 10:35, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Childs

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

Fails WP:GNG; no WP:SIGCOV; most recently edited by someone with an offensive username. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, United States of America, and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wasn't able to find much information about him, beyond the fact that he's a theatre director. There is a passing mention in a brief Playbill article, which states that he is directing the play, but that was the only source I could find about the Casey Childs that matched the article's description. The other sources were about various different people named Casey Childs. Bandit Heeler (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I object to the fact that the majority of the nom relates to the fact that one of the edits to this article was by User:USAstinks ("most recently edited by someone with an offensive username"). That is an argument to avoid. The user did not create this article, and in fact they made only one of the 65 edits to this article over the last 16+ years. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. While I do believe that the article fails notability, I don't think the fact that one of the (not main) contributors to the article has an offensive name is a relevant point in a deletion discussion. Bandit Heeler (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is not very relevant, but i do agree with the point that there is not enough information about him. Kasphero (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Primary Stages. There appears to be a painter called Casey Childs who is more notable per the online coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:34, 30 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:44, 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 Karachi Kings cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Ameer

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

This guy fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. A search seems to only one article with his name in it and it only covers him tangentially. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Cricket. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete samee converse 01:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found several references using this search by focusing my search on Dawn.com, a leading English-language newspaper in Pakistan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources here seem to all be tangential coverage of him playing for his team. The first hit isn't even of Abdul Ameer but of a M. Abdul Ameer who seems to be unrelated. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too poor to stay on Wikipedia, not much to salvage around here. Acartonadooopo (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Acartonadooopo, it's the English Wikipedia's rule that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. It doesn't matter whether the current version of the article is "too poor to stay on Wikipedia", because the question here at AFD is whether the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Karachi Kings cricketers Not sure I'm seeing enough in a search to suggest a WP:GNG pass, however there could well be offline coverage. Suitable redirect per WP:ATD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugbyfan22 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 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!} 23:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources likely to exist in Pakistan; taking 100 first-class wickets is no mean feat. AA (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Sources likely to exist" is a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:32, 30 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, zero SIGCOV to be found and no evidence that anything exists offline. JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing found or presented which meets SIGCOV. This is a BLP. Subject has received bare mentions from a single source. Everything else is unsupported assertion and a stats database. BusterD (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Karachi Kings cricketers BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found in article or in BEFORE which meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, name mentions, nothing meeting SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 14:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Karachi Kings cricketers: Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 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 2024 United States presidential election in Wyoming. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Wyoming Republican presidential caucuses

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

Despite sources existing, there is no reason for this article to exist separate from 2024 United States presidential election in Wyoming#Republican caucuses. There it can be sufficiently covered in one sentence. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge In uncontested race, results are easily and best covered in main article. Reywas92^Talk 03:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still has enough sources to maintain it's own article despite the single candidate. I would argue that some of the citations should be removed because they are not related to the primary. This would be 7, 8, 9, and maybe the sixth one. There are partially related to the race in Wyoming, but are more general for the overall election. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This brings up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Alaska Democratic presidential caucuses, where Biden is the only presidential candidate, and only 15 delegates. I don't necessarily have a strong opinion on any of them. But I do think there should be a guideline consistency in how these small caucuses are handled. I don't know that there is a guideline of any direction for these situations. — Maile (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge Adds no value to WP as a teeny stub (WP:REDUNDANT). As Esolo5002 states, a trivial uncontested primary of this type can be easily covered in one sentence in the main article. Feels like people create these non-articles purely to check off the redlinks in Template:2024 Republican primaries, but many of those links just need to be a redirect to "<Year> United States presidential election in <state>#Republican caucuses". 2024 Nebraska Republican presidential primary falls into the same category. I'd go as far as to say that being a section in the main <election in state> article should be the default, with caucuses only getting a standalone article when there's some major controversy or it was a bigger/more heavily contested primary. Even minorly contested primaries like 2024 Washington Republican presidential primary (Trump vs. Haley) are really just a results box that could be as easily slotted into the main article. Hemmers (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There just aren't enough happenings to justify this article.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:35, 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 redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KNAV-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: The relatively long history for an HC2/Innovate station — dating back to 1983 and a 21-year ownership by Navarro College — provides the vaguest chance that there might have been coverage in those days. That this article is nonetheless a nominal survivor of last year's bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles, though, probably indicates that the required significant coverage isn't likely to surface or exist (and its post-2004 history seems to be the usual primarily-national-services run of many a non-notable major-market LPTV), so the "weak" here is probably nothing more than a hedging if anything. Ultimately, it's probably another remnant of the lower standards of 2006 that merits at most an {{R to list entry}} in 2024. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Corsicana paper is unavailable for the period in question. I found one 1988 item indicating that, during severe weather, it aired a weather radar image from a Doppler on the campus (which was also fed to WFAA-TV). Unfortunately, without that paper, we are stuck with a redirect to owner list. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:18, 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 redirect‎ to 1980 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hwang Sang-hoi

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither sources pass WP:SIGCOV. No other reliable sources found, aside from a small football bio that doesn't appear to be very reliable. Not notable enough in either case. Lynch44 (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG, nor Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Noorullah (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – To 1980 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea as WP:AtD. Svartner (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1980 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea as possible search term. Giant Snowman 20:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1980 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea - only claim to fame and per ATD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Mennillo

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Sources are mostly transfer and contractual related and some stuff related to his job as a an Occupational therapist which is not notable. Simione001 (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't looked it at much myself, but just noting @GiantSnowman: that the article has been expanded with more sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - there appears to be enough decent coverage to satisfy me. Giant Snowman 07:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above. Player with extensive Australia top flgiht career with many sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 1 and 8 are the best from what I see, not very extensive but we have enough to build an article with everything else. Oaktree b (talk) 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 redirect‎ to Belize national football team#Coaching history. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Slusher

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Belize national football team#Coaching history where his name is mentioned. Govvy (talk) 16:57, 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 merge‎ to U.S. policy toward authoritarian governments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of dictators supported by the United States

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

There is no way this page could ever satisfy WP:NPOV because terms like "dictator" and "support" can be subjectively debated, leaving this page in violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY. Whereas List of wars involving the United States can sort through the subjectivity of distinguishing skirmishes from wars by criteria like named military operations, the "support" for a dictatorship could easily range from diplomatic recognition to outright military and economic alliances. For example, why not include Kim Jong Un on the tenuous basis of Trump's visits providing North Korea's dictatorship with greater legitimacy? BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 01:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with U.S. policy toward authoritarian governments. Obviously it is controversial to some but that's no reason for deletion, this is a topic that gets a lot of coverage. Orange sticker (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestion! My issue with this list article is that the format suggests objective criteria for inclusion, but an article on this area US foreign policy seems appropriate. It looks like that article could benefit from some organization, such as Cold War alliances and War on Terror alliances. I will try improving that article with some of this one's content over the next few days, but I will leave this deletion discussion open in case others have more suggestions. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 16:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the table isn't appropriate here as it implies a list of identical things, and there's too much nuance and variation. A list with more narrative would be better. Orange sticker (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with U.S. policy toward authoritarian governments, this topic is well documented, so making it a section on the topic's main article is just what makes sense. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does Trump really support dictator Kim Jong-un? While US presidents who support other dictators often show it directly or vaguely or conceal it, Trump does not have the above signs. Don't talk about Trump's visit to North Korea to speculate, or if you As an anti-Trump person, there is nothing to discuss. What I read is that the tabloids, or at least the opposing views, cannot place Kim Jong-un here, for the List of wars involving the United States, because it begins started before it was even founded, and support for dictatorship only started from the 1920s onwards, so this argument is not practically applicable, if you mean the term "state dictatorship", "support" is a violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY, this site does not even have anything to defame, affecting the honor and responsibility of the United States or the US government, what they do is their reputation. Their intention, purpose, and actions, they invaded other countries and bombed and burned. It's their fault, no one else's, this article is not even a propaganda thing or a "battlefield" as WP:NOTADVOCACY mentioned, if you read carefully, this is an informative article. complete, with correct sources. For merging with U.S. policy towards authoritarian governments, there are things that have not been mentioned (or literally missing) in this article, so it would be better to have a separate page. Geotubemedia (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Geotubemedia, it seems you started editing last month, so I want to clarify that merging is different from redirecting. As you note, each article contains some information not present in the other, so merging would involve combining the total sum of their information into the same article. I am not approaching this deletion discussion from a particular viewpoint, instead hoping to show that a list article is ripe for edit wars because this hypothetical anti-Trump editor could speculate about whether Trump supports Kim Jong Un. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 11:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with U.S. policy toward authoritarian governments. A topic that gets a surprising amount of coverage (for example, this article from France 24), and clearly passes WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge towards U.S. policy toward authoritarian governments. The previous article already have great content, adding new list is not needed. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge due to precedents establishing that we shouldn't have a list of dictators, most recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dictators (2nd nomination) and Talk:Dictator/Archive_2#List_of_dictators_(in-article_copy). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Simpson

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:57, 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. ✗plicit 02:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Méndez

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet GNG. All I found was this. JTtheOG (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 16:31, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 02:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camilo Sánchez

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:37, 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. ✗plicit 02:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kat&Jared

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

Biography for a Christian Rock group that has no sources aside from their personal website - reads like promotional material. Searches did not turn up any coverage of this group in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Christianity. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom., this does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NMUSICIAN. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing I find is primary or social media/streaming sites. They perform at various events, but that isn't enough for notability alone. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability; no sites crop up that aren't self-published or forum types. Clear delete from me. ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:53, 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.

RadPHP

The result was merged into Embarcadero Technologies. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 00:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)‎[reply]

AfDs for this article:

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

No signs of significant coverage immediately visible. Might be merged into Embarcadero Technologies. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 22:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 22:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, merge content into Embarcadero Technologies. Greenman (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Embarcadero Technologies: Not notable independently. Could be mentioned at the company though. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 16:13, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fortnite Chapter 5 Season 2: Myths and Mortals

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

We do not have articles for video game "seasons" unless there is a very clear reason why it warrants a separate article (aka meeting notability), which this does not. Also falls into WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT territory. λ NegativeMP1 00:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 00:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reason that this article with its questionable sources and zero claim to enough notability to warrant a separate article should be one. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article is not well sourced and could very well be fit into the parent article rather than be split off. And as Negative mentioned, this is a very GAMECRUFT filled article. Captain Galaxy 00:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move~~ to Fortnite: Myths and Mortals and redirect to Fortnite Battle Royale#Chapter 5 It's plausible someone would be looking for the season episode title and details, but they aren't going to type in every bit of the current title. The main article covers it much more appropriate than this text that belongs on a more appropriate Fandom. Nate • (chatter) 00:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just create that redirect right now? Neocorelight (Talk) 15:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's still red. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the red link has a space between "Fortnite" and "Myths" which is obviously an error. A redirect was made though from Fortnite:Myths and Mortals to Fortnite Battle Royale#Chapter 5 as was said. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually not having a space after colon is a mistake. That's how titles are written: Fallout: New Vegas, Dune: Part Two. Neocorelight (Talk) 23:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. It is no longer red. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this specifically now that the suggested rd has been created. Nate • (chatter) 16:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete though the Fortnite seasons as a whole get enough coverage that we could move the section on the fbr article to something like "Fortnite Battle Royale seasonal content".
— Masem (t) 16:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Batte, Elliott. "Dappy Unveils 'Good Intentions' Video - Watch Now - Stereoboard". Stereoboard.com. Retrieved 2024-05-08.

[2] "RIO's not so Unpredictable future". 2010-08-03. Retrieved 2024-05-08.

[3] "Dappy debuts new single 'Come With Me'". Digital Spy. 2012-06-27. Retrieved 2024-05-08.

[:2-4] Sardesai, Rajdeep; Ambani, Nita; Network 18 (2011-08-01). Real Heroes: Ordinary People Extraordinary Service. Roli Books Private Limited. ISBN 978-93-5194-057-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]