Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 10	April 12 >

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Montes de Oca[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dominican Republic-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON can't find any relevant evidence of the entity that I can use to support the Article. NP83 (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG, BIO. Nothing in article or BEFORE shows any notabilty. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 08:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails to meet the standards set in WP:GNG and WP:BLP 1keyhole (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spoon Murder 2[edit]

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

Short film lacking notability; moved to draft but restored to main without increased evidence of notability. Search reveals IMDb and YouTube but not much sigcov. To avoid 'to and fro' with draftspace, a discussion is warranted, although it could be a candidate for 'speedy'. Eagleash (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Belarus. Skynxnex (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This film is mentioned in Russian-language articles about Belarusian cinema in 2014. There is an article on kinopoisk (not a wiki format, the administration adds the information)
46.204.76.68 (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This film is mentioned in Russian-language articles about Belarusian cinema in 2014. There is an article on kinopoisk (not a wiki format, the administration adds the information) 46.204.72.10 (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2022-11 ✗ R2

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing found with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS. ru and be wp's do not have articles on subject. // Timothy :: talk 10:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in English. I attempted to search in Russian and failed to find SIGCOV but recognize my abilities are weak. If significant sources are found, please ping me. Jacona (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Tekken characters. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jinpachi Mishima[edit]

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

Minor character fails WP:GNG. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Selectively to List of Tekken characters. His reception is a joke and clearly fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not FANDOM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge per above. The reception is, as pointed above, indeed a joke - a bunch of listicles placement plus the claim to fame in the form of "having one of the best mustaches in video games". Nope. Nope. Nope nope nope. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge to List of Tekken characters. There is nothing here showing any notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Tekken characters. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Fossum[edit]

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

BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - notability is largely WP:INHERITED from Kicking & Screaming (TV series). MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sum total of contributions fails WP:BASIC and individual components are not significant on their own; WP:FILMMAKER of film is not cited and doesn't seem to be a notable film, and WP:ACT requires "significant roles in multiple films/shows" MetricMaster (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was able to find this[[1]][[2]], I believe their might be more sources to help sustain the article.Epcc12345 (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find this more sources[[3]]

[[4]] Winner of Kicking & Screaming (TV series) [[5]] [[6]]. I still believe, there are more sources to establish notability.Epcc12345 (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 22:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having just !voted in a few rather frivolous yet notable topic AFDs, I've ended up here where we've had 3 relistings with nary a comment. I'd be happy to say he's just a minor reality show winner, but he does seem to have parlayed that into later coverage[7], despite the current promo-y feel of this article. Which means we are heading to no consensus without more debate, I suppose.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:SIGCOV. This is not in any way an endorsement of his views. It seems as though he has done enough after winning a reality show on a major United States network to reach a barely notable level of notability. We have, for what it's worth, sometimes treated the winners, places, ad shows of major reality TV show as as if they are automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Marazano[edit]

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

The creator of the page is Richard Marazano, as the usernames of the users User:Marazano and User:Marazano~enwiki show. On the French Wikipedia, it says he is an author. The article also cites no sources, the tone does not seem encyclopedic, and his official website has become a phising link. // 💪Benzo💪 (Send me a message!) (Here's what I've contributed.) 07:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, and Comics and animation. // 💪Benzo💪 (Send me a message!) (Here's what I've contributed.) 07:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like a promotional article to me. Or a phishing scam to steal from Wikipedia users. I've gone ahead and removed the URL for now. ImperialMajority (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)(sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I salvaged some broken links and added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 22:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doon International School (Palia Kalan)[edit]

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

Utterly fails WP:GNG. Unreferenced since 2011. I tried looking in all major Indian reliable sources, newspapers, magazines, journals and found nothing. Only links found were for the iconic The Doon School, which this page and many other 'Doon' pages (have also Afd'd Doon Public School) ride on. This is not a notable school by any measure. [ BiblioFreedom (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with the proposal to delete the article as it lacks references and does not meet the general notability guidelines of Wikipedia. I was only able to fine one reference on web which is also not reliable, and the article has been unreferenced for over a decade. Macrobreed2 (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: article ineligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 22:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Yudin[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician, trivial coverage, elected to a party leadership role which (according to the sources) had at one time been powerful locally, but no longer is Orange Mike | Talk 22:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not notable. Aintabli (talk) 06:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 1889–90 West Bromwich Albion F.C. season. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Pittaway[edit]

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

Per User:TimothyBlue No sources in article are IS RS with SIGCOV. BEFORE showed nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

User:Ortizesp has contested this statement.

I endorsed deletion after searching BNA and finding no relevant hits; all I found was local news about namesakes, announcements about petty crimes, adverts, weddings, police witness statements... Nothing about a footballer from West Brom. WP:SPORTBASIC requires multiple sources showing detailed coverage. I oppose redirecting to List of West Bromwich Albion F.C. players as he is not notable enough to be on that list. Is he even the most notable person by the name of "James Pittaway"? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1889–90 West Bromwich Albion F.C. season where he is mentioned. Giant Snowman 18:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to season article per above. It's a reasonable search term. His surname got namechecked playing and scoring for West Brom's reserves that season; in those days, reports rarely used given names. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1889–90 West Bromwich Albion F.C. season.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Hsu[edit]

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

The only source is IMDb. None of her roles are particularly notable, with majority not even having names. She also apparently hasn't acted at all in the past decade. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aintabli (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . After two full relistings, no consensus for a particular outcome has ensued. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jardine Motors Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I've looked through all of the sources and there was nothing secondary or tertiary in sight. WP:NCORP says there needs to be multiple articles in reliable secondary or tertiary sources covering the organization in significant depth to meet the notability requirements for businesses, otherwise you just end up with spammy brochure pages like this one. BigheadBigheadBighead (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Hong Kong, and United Kingdom. AllyD (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this company was recently acquired by Lithia Motors (press release) and if there isn't sufficient coverage that is probably a redirect target. Most of the references in the current article are completely useless. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jardine Motors Group participants: John from Idegon (talk · contribs), Noq (talk · contribs), AJHingston (talk · contribs), Peterkingiron (talk · contribs), and GrouseyGrouse (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect to Lithia Motors per Walt Yoder's suggestion. I can't find any significant coverage on the Internet.BigheadBigheadBighead (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I agree about the unsatisfactory nature of the current article, we have the problem that the group was claimed at one time to be the largest automative retailer in the UK, and it also contains reference to the predecessor Lancaster group. Time has moved on, and we don't know that the brand will even survive following the latest takeover. WP isn't simply as directory of things that are currently of interest, but seeks to deal also with the past, including things that no longer exist. I am concerned that a redirect will lose that. The problem we have with the requirement for coverage in multiple secondary and tertiary sources is that just these arguments have also been used to argue for deletion of articles about major brands widely recognised nationally and even internationally, and even companies with turnovers in the many billions. The difficulty is about the nature of media coverage, especially in Europe. Aside from direct quotes from or reworking of press releases the only coverage is often when a company fails. The requirement for truly independent coverage is often an illusion anyway, since the only sources about finances, employees, and often operations necessarily come from the company itself and are merely repeated even if the writer has no connection themself.

I have no personal knowledge of the company and am certainly not going to die on this hill. But the very fact that this was apparently the largest UK automotive group (and there is no reason to doubt it) and Google is not able to provide further help (probably because most sources are deleted) both demonstrates why WP is needed and the danger of too rigorously applying the rules where notability is in the past. AJHingston (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article contains facts about the company such as how the business started and developed plus info. on brands and dealerships. Don't see a promotional tone. There are independent reliable, secondary sources already cited in the article such as Yorkshire Post, The Lawyer, AM Online, Financial Times (offline), Motor Trader.com (selective). However, quite a lot of the material could do with better sourcing. Agree with AJHingston's insightful and eloquent comment above, including the reason why a redirect is not the right outcome.

Plenty of ongoing coverage here [8]. Also, this from Car Dealer Magazine [9]. Most sources naturally include quotations from the company, but editorial comment and fact checking remains; one has to be selective in choosing which articles to cite content from. I see sufficient, indepth, independent coverage in reliable secondary sources to pass GNG/NCORP. Rupples (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lithia Motors as per the Acquisition Notice above. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. From the references I can access, I'm unable to locate a single reference containing "Independent Content". Rupples above lists various references without specifically pointing out what content within those article meets our criteria. I can't see anything that does.

There's two from The Yorkshire Post but they don't appear to be accessible. They both appear to be regurgitated PR judging from the headline - perhaps Rupples can let us know what's in those articles?
TheLawyer article mentions two lawfirms that "have both landed roles on Jardine Motors Group's acquisition of car dealership Wayside Group". It's PR from the lawfirms with zero in-depth information on the company.
Two from AM Online. The first is a list without providing a single word about the company. The second is a puff profile on Nick Lancaster - again with zero "Independent Content" and zero in-depth information about the company.
The Financial Times article is about the parent firm with not even a mention of this topic company
There's 16 Motor Trader references and they are all regurgitated PR. Without exception.

None of the reference in this refbombed article meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. From my own searching, I could only find a self-published book containing a case study and some mentions-in-passing. Redirect seems to be the best option. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen the offline Yorkshire Post articles so unable to judge the amount of coverage therein. Whether any of the sources 'individually' amount to significant coverage is open to debate. Wikipedia contributors have differing interpretations of what significant coverage amounts to, as witnessed in many AfD discusions.

I pointed out the ongoing coverage in AM Online. AM Online counts as a single source so facts can be elicited from any of its articles on the company, not just one. For me, this source [10] includes sufficient editorial commentary on the company (additional to the director's quotes) on branding policy, financial details, its parent company, no. of employees, history, selected acquisitions, marques etc, to count towards notability. As the article states though, the business has a low profile and so admittedly there's not a wealth of coverage. Rupples (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are two types of "sources" - ones that are used to support facts/information within an article must meet WP:RS (reliable source). But sources that are used to establish notability must meet extra guidelines (in this case GNG/NCORP). So I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "AM Online counts as a single source so facts can be elicited from any of its articles on the company, not just one" because if you're using sources to support facts within an article, you can use as many as you want from a particular single source even if that amounts to different references. But, if you're trying to say that - for the purposes of establishing notability - you can aggregate multiple articles from the same publisher than that is not correct. GNG/NCORP says that multiple sources are required and MULTSOURCES says that for notability purposes, sources must be unrelated to each other to be "multiple". That isn't taken to mean that different articles from a single publisher/author/etc over any amount of time can be aggregated together to form a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. It is also explicitly addressed by WP:SIRS which says "individual sources" must be evaluated.

So, multiple articles published on AM Online does not counts as "multiple sources" for the purposes of meeting the GNG/NCORP criteria that "multiple sources" are required. Nor does it count as a a big aggregated "single source" which then must contain in-depth "Independent Content".

Looking at the specific article (archived copy) you've pointed to, this fails ORGIND as it relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company/executive and has no original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, hats off to you for such a comprehensive explanation. Although I've read the GNG/NCORP guidelines a few times I'm still confused on certain points. The source evaluation table gives examples of single 'passages' and their impact on notability. What it doesn't do is evaluate the "Examples of substantial coverage" such as ". . . ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization" (under WP:CORPDEPTH).

My interpretation is that in the current case AM Online is a reliable, independent source providing ongoing media coverage of Jardine Motors. So yes, I am saying that "for the purposes of establishing notability - you can aggregate multiple articles from the same publisher". It counts as one of the sources towards establishing notability. However, on its own AM Online is not sufficient as such coverage would have to be provided by two or more publishers. Rupples (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll disagree. The context of "ongoing media coverage" in what you've quoted above is just another way of differentiating between companies that hit the news over a single incident or PR stunt or crime or whatever. We're saying we require coverage (sustained over time) focussed on the actual topic of the article (whether that is company or product). So we want out notability guidelines to reflect the fact that there may exist a "flash in the pan" fame - but that isn't sustained and won't establish notability. You'll find the same "limitation" in our BLP guidelines too.
I've no issue with referring to AM Online as a reliable (functionally) independent source. Be aware the content must also be "Independent" as well.

We can check WP:SOURCEDEF and see that our definition of "source" captures three elements - the piece of work itself (singular), the creator and the publisher. So you'll sometimes find our guidelines using the same work (source) but referring to one of the three possible aspects (article, author, publisher) and the context will (should) assist in determining the meaning - unless someone blatently goes looking for a loophole :-)

For example, our definitions of Secondary source and Primary source both refer to a document singular.

But for me, this is why WP:SIRS exists. It clearly states that Individual sources must be evaluated" and also says must be a secondary source which as we can see refers to a single document. I also note that when we get to various examples, the language changes to refer to a single article or document.

Part of the problem here comes from our overloading of the word source to have slightly different meanings - whether it is a single article or whether it is a single journalist or whether it is a single publisher. But at no time does it say anywhere in our guidelines that we can aggregate all articles by a single journalist and treat them as a single article. Taking it to its logical conclusion, that interpretation would mean that, for example, we could aggregate every article from the NYT over decades by different journalists and treat as a single article. This isn't the correct interpretation. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by Rupples (talk · contribs), specifically this article in Bauer Media Group's AM-online and this article from CarDealer. Although the sources include quotes from people affiliated with the subject, there is enough independent reporting to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". AJHingston's eloquent comment is a strong argument for why a standalone article rather than a redirect is the right outcome here, particularly since the company has received significant independent coverage in reliable sources.
Cunard (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response. As you know the test is not simply "significant coverage in reliable sources". WP:SIRS lays out what is required for each individual source. So after we identify "Independent Content" (ORGIND) we examine that content to see if it is in-depth (CORPDEPTH). The AM-online article relies entirely on quotes and an interview and it is just flat out wrong for you to suggest there sufficient independent reporting or that the article merely "includes" quotes - it is completely reliant on the information provided by the company and the execs and it is clear that there isn't *any* independent content in that article. Everything is attributable to the company. It's not even close. If you believe otherwise, then identify the specific content here and explain why is it *clearly attributable* to a source unaffiliated with the company and why it is in-depth information. As for the Car Dealer article - it is a regurgitation and summary of their annual returns - the original 57 page document can be downloaded here. There's nothing in that article that isn't in the original report. There is zero "independent content" in the article which is "in-depth". The journalist is not analysing/interpreting the raw data - simply summarising/rewording/regurgitating. So again, if you think otherwise, identify precisely the content in that article which you say is first of all, independent content and second of all is in-depth. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage: "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." The sources provide independent commentary about the company.
The AM-online articles includes independent commentary about the company:
1. "For a motor retailer of its size – between £825 million and £1.1 billion, depending on the state of the economy – Jardine Motors Group has become used to keeping a low profile. That is about to change."
2. "There is good reason for this policy: Jardine Motors Group – at number nine in the new AM100 table – is in a strong financial position and has a global parent of considerable substance."
3. His business has kept out of the limelight mainly because of its Asian heritage and ownership, and one reason he wants to move it forward now is because of its franchise mix (see below).
4. "It was beyond the imagination of William Jardine and James Matheson that the company they founded would in 2010 be running one of the UK’s biggest car dealer groups. That is because the two Scottish entrepreneurs from the same family went into business in 1832, long before cars arrived. ... And the dream came true because Lancaster held four franchises that are still part of today’s Jardine Motors Group UK. In 1981 Jardine Matheson acquired 76% of the company and took total ownership in 1992."
The CarDealer article includes independent commentary about the company:
1. "Jardine Motors Group had an extremely bad 2020, posting an operating loss of £9.8m after making £8.3m profit the year before – despite claiming more than £12m in furlough cash."
2. "Jardine – which was founded in 1969 by Nicholas and Ronald Lancaster in East Anglia and has its registered office address in Colchester– now represents 13 brands, including Aston Martin, Porsche, Maserati, McLaren, Jaguar and Ferrari, at more than 50 sites."
3. The headline has an independent negative summary of the company: "Jardine Motors Group suffers catastrophic year as £8.3m operating profit slides to £9.8m loss despite £12m-plus furlough support. £2.7m pre-tax profit becomes a £13.9m loss. Turnover at dealership chain sank by a third to £1.36bn. £30m costs review included 522 jobs being axed. Aftersales revenue dropped by 33 per cent."
Cunard (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source. Independent, reliable, indepth coverage with just brief comment attributed to the company in these articles.[11]. Rupples (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ayres, Chris. "Appleyard sale creates biggest motor retailer." Times, 11 Oct. 1997, p. 29. The Times Digital Archive, [link-gale-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/IF0501244564/TTDA]. Plus further comment by Tempus on page 31, which questions the acquisition by Jardine. Rupples (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are very good finds that briefly attribute the company and include independent reporting about the company's history:
1. Aldalou, Muhammad (2017-07-14). "Sales move closer to £2bn at luxury car retailer". Insider Media. Archived from the original on 2023-04-21. Retrieved 2023-04-21.
  The article notes: "Jardine Motors Group, which trades under the Lancaster brand, originated as a family-run dealership in East Anglia and was founded in 1969 by Nicholas and Ronald Lancaster. The Colchester-headquartered group is now an authorised franchisee for more than 20 car premium and luxury manufacturers including Aston Martin, Bentley, Ferrari, Jaguar, Maserati and Porsche and operates from over 70 locations across the country."
2. Rannard, Storm (2018-07-13). "Turnover tops £2bn at luxury motor retailer". Insider Media. Archived from the original on 2023-04-21. Retrieved 2023-04-21.
  The article notes: "Jardine Motors Group was founded by Nicholas and Ronald Lancaster in 1969. It now represents in excess of 20 car and motorcycle brands, including Ferrari, Porsche, Aston Martin and Lamborghini, at more than 70 locations. ... During 2017 the group continued to invest in its Jaguar and Land Rover dealerships and acquired sites in Bury St Edmunds and Bolton, expanding its presence in the BMW/Mini and Audi market. A new Audi dealership also opened in Bolton."
Cunard (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Aghayev[edit]

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

My searches of "Samir Ağayev" and "Samir Aghayev" did not yield anything better than other stats sites like Soccerbase and Transfermarkt, which do not confer notability. Given that he has only played 8 mins of professional league football, this might be WP:TOOSOON, then again, I don't see any guarantee that he will be notable in the very near future. TFF is the best source that I found but it's a squad list mention only and playing in U19 football matches doesn't make you automatically notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP. No evidence of notability, fails GNG and BIO. My before search resulted in nothing that meets SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if multiple IS RS SIGCOV sources are added to the article. :WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Saperstein[edit]

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

Nothing in the article or via a Google News search suggests notability. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have improved the content of this article with all the proper links you requested. He is considered by many of us in media as the father of streaming video on the net and we believe he deserves a place on Wikipedia. He was my mentor and many other students as well. thanks for your consideration Peter Petesoros (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Petesoros, you have NOT improved the content: you just added a bunch of resume stuff with YouTube links--that's the worst you can do in an article in which you clearly have a conflict of interest, as you just admitted. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no articles in Jstor or Gscholar that talk about him. You can believe whatever you want, I think he might be pulling your leg. There was no internet in 1989 by the way; the Web as you know it know really only happened around 1994-1995. Modem speeds were too slow in the 1980's to have any sort of streaming video... This appears a hoax. Oaktree b (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no conflict of interest, as I was just an observer at the time when this webcasting was in its infancy.

He was streaming on the internet in 1993 and yes it was limited but existed. He was a pioneer in this field

hence the reference note included in the history of Technology. This is no hoax and its insulting but you are misinformed if you dont know that we in the government were streaming video in the early nineties. There were no CDN's, so downloading was all that was available to consumers for several years. I will find some articles to improve this article. Petesoros (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While not a hoax persay, there's nothing here to show notability. None of the external links are to any sources, instead they are to YouTube videos. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough sourcing to support the notability claim. I removed a ton of bad sources - links to videos that did not even mention the company or the subject, user-generated puffery in IMDB, an anonymous blog, etc. Even with all that removed, the original claim to notability is interesting, but I can't source it. It seems unlikely as written; there were well documented full movie broadcasts on the internet earlier in 1993. This SunSentinel article from 12/6/93 describes the Hotelview product as video stored on a laserdisk, and "eventually" to be distibuted through "interactive television network". This article notes that the company would start distributing on the Internet "within weeks" in late 1997 when it was more common. I assume there was some kind of earlier prototype test, but I was not able to find mention of it anywhere except the "History of Information" site given. That claim looks a little odd compared to sources from that time period; it also links out to the Wikipedia article, which was probably the source. The description was word-for-word from the original Wikipedia article, written by "Saper1", which is also not a good sign. Sorry, maybe I'm missing something. I also fear that since the claim has been sitting there unchallenged for a decade or more, there's going to be some citogenesis Sam Kuru (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence of SIGCOV in WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY, reliable sources. The article in it's current state is just WP:PROMO with no substance to back it up, barely verifiable and certainly not the significant coverage to meet the general notability guideline or any other notability standard. Jacona (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Lonesome Tonight? (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Perhaps I just don't know how this works. I left a PROD on this page because only two of the listed items have blue links, and one of those is up for AfD and is likely not to survive. But now I see that PROD has been removed because there are blue links for associated people, just not the listed works themselves. Is that right? Do we allow a dab page that only links to one item which actually shares its title? Personally, I think it's a bit silly and I wouldn't allow it, hence my PROD. But if there's disagreement there which I'm unaware of, I'd love to hear it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Theatre, and Disambiguations. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a valid dab page: it lists and distinguishes a group of things sharing a title, each of which is mentioned in a Wikipedia page, to which there is a blue link in the entry. There is nothing to be gained from deleting this useful navigational tool. It will help readers. It will also help any future editors who might want to mention, or link to, or make a page for, one of these entities. See MOS:DABRED. PamD 21:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted above, this is a valid disambiguation page. It's not entirely uncommon for titles of works to be ambiguous like this as a result of either being intentionally reused or used independently by multiple creators. TompaDompa (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The likelihood of any of these red links becoming articles is slim, and while a dabpage that includes only red links may be allowed per WP:DABRED, it's usefulness is nil. 162 etc. (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Turns out the 2021 film has received a fair amount of coverage in sources, so I created Are You Lonesome Tonight? (2021 film). I suspect there is more to be found in Chinese-language sources. TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Since no other article for a film named "Are You Lonesome Tonight?" exists, the correct title is Are You Lonesome Tonight? (film). 162 etc. (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also fairly sure that the play by Alan Bleasdale is notable. Simon Bowman's official website quotes reviews of the play from Daily Express, Time Out, London Broadcasting, The Observer, London Standard, and Sunday Express. It might be the case that these sources are only available in print, but assuming that the reviews aren't completely made up, the play almost certainly meets WP:GNG. I also found coverage in Los Angeles Times and Trust News, for good measure. TompaDompa (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Are You Lonesome Tonight?. Fails MOS:DABRED, "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should be included on a disambiguation page only when a linked article ... also includes that red link" and none of the redlinks have article redlinks.[12] The sole blue link can be handled with a hatnote. // Timothy :: talk 10:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]
It would be possible to unlink those red links and leave them as valid dab page entries with unlinked black text, items mentioned in the blue linked articles. Would the encyclopedia be improved? Not really. There's a possibility any of these items might some time get an article and someone has taken the time to suggest appropriate disambiguations for them all. Best left as is. PamD 15:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted the Bleasdale play to a redirect to an anchor in his article as there are a couple of sourced sentences about the musical. PamD 15:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now a clearly valid disambiguation page with multiple blue links. BD2412 T 03:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per changes to article. Works as a DAB now. // Timothy :: talk 04:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vega's (Chilean TV series)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2013 DonaldD23 talk to me 18:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Chile. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this is an annoying search on Google so it is hard to find things, but I found a large number of independent sources discussing it in a few places: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. The article needs improvement, but this is a clear keep for me. matt91486 (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if Matt91486 can implement the above sources as they demonstrate notability. – Meena • 10:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources actually being put in the article aren't necessary for AFD, per NEXIST. matt91486 (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I just hope to see them actually implemented so the article is improved. – Meena • 11:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Prosalendis[edit]

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

Blatant NPOV violation, article is written like advertisement. Most sources are primary and/or unreliable. I count three sources affiliated with the subject and four social media links as references. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 18:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 18:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second, fifth, ninth, twentieth, and twenty-third sources are YouTube videos. The fifteenth, sixteenth, twenty-seventh, and twenty-eight are primary sources, directly affiliated with the subject. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 18:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article meets the notability and verification criteria. I put those social media links because they were accurate references to the topic. However, if those links make the article seem like an advertisement, I could replace them with other references.

In addition to that, the sources are not unreliable since most of them are verified websites that exist for years, such us the interview websites. Some of them are primary, but the information of the references exists in almost all of them. HustlerLFG (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use interviews as sourcing, and youtube isn't a reliable source either. What you're left with after removing these isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Martial arts, United Arab Emirates, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet GNG or NPOV Nswix (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every single source that isn't youtube or other random social media posts was SEO junk - several were actual fake PR/blogs used for blackhat promotional nonsense. The creator even used blacklisted PR sources by using fake URLs. I've trimmed all of the garbage PR sources out - not much really usable left. Searches return just the usual promotional SEO stuff - nothing really notable or usable. I would have absolutely G11ed this if you had tagged it as such - I suppose we can let the process run. Sam Kuru (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure spam Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. red flag #1 "entrepreneur", red flag #2 "crypto". What's left? A Greek person that is online? Zero sources that are RS, rest is fluffy spam stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Activities and Recreation Center (UIUC). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IntraMural Physical Education Building[edit]

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

Non-notable building Amisom (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Education, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Activities and Recreation Center (UIUC). Took about two minutes of digging to find that the building was refurbished and became the ARC, which has its own article already. Garuda3 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Activities and Recreation Center (UIUC) Djflem (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Activities and Recreation Center (UIUC).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aoidh (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo Raid (1448)[edit]

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

There's essentially no sourced information about the actual raid itself in this article. It's all about Hunyadi and the Albanian–Venetian War I can't find any sources the even refer to a Kosovo Raid by this name Gugrak (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Albania, and Kosovo. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are several sources on this event^[1]^[2]^[3]. The fact that Skanderbeg was en route for Kosovo before he was sabotaged by Brankovic (according to these sources) makes it a case of WP:SKYISBLUE for the raid/ravaging to have happened in Kosovo. however, if editors can not agree I suggest the name should be changed to Skanderbeg's raid in the Despotate of Brankovic or Serbia instead. Durraz0 (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not WP:SKYISBLUE it's WP:SYNTH. Your sources make brief reference to Skanderberg raiding as part of a wider conflict. They don't call it a Kosovo raid, or go into specifics at all. This should be in the aftermath section of the main conflict articleGugrak (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that is not WP:SYNTH. skanderbeg being 20 miles from where the battle took place and then to allow his armies to ravage the domain does not really place him anywhere except Kosovo. Circiacono goes into details about what happened. but you are right, it does actually not refer to the raid as happening in kosovo. skanderbegs raid into serbia or despotate of brankovic may actually be better. Durraz0 (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Scanderbeg ran around Serbia, plundering it and putting it to fire and sword" is not 'going into details'Gugrak (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that and the stuff about skanderbegs motives "to punish the unfaithful krajl" along with "Indignant at not having been able to rush to Hunyadi's aid, in a war that could perhaps change the fate of Albania and the entire Balkan peninsula" is detail. this seems to be a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Durraz0 (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not detail that supports the creation of an entire article, and indeed your second quote is not even about the raid. This is not specific and noteworthy detail about a raid , and it certainly is not enough to justify an article.Gugrak (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is, there is detailed information about this raid. you saying it is not enough is just a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Durraz0 (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's one sentence that has no detail. it's after thought that should be covered in the main articleGugrak (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Gugrak. Way too little information is known about the actual event, not to mention the lack of information of its background and aftermath as well, to actually have an entire article about it.

The vulnerability of the article has left room for editors to add a bunch of assumptions to the page. Even the title sounds inaccurate and misleading, this page should rather be a part of a wider article. Aleksandarstankov (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are multiple sources that talk about the event as user DurrazO has shown. Does the article need more sources? What article doesn’t? There is no good reason to delete this article. Alltan (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources don't specifically talk about the event though.Gugrak (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't see any reason why to delete the article, since multiple sources approve that the raid happened as shown by user DurrazO. GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to have been a raid, but there's next to no information about it, indeed the article itself says so.. The bulk of this article is a summary of a war which already has its own article Gugrak (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This event happening is not a good enough reason for it to have an entire article about it. This article carry an overwhelming uncertainty through the following:

1. We can't even determine something as fundamental as the type of event this was - military conflict, massacre, "simple raid without any killings", etc.. We can't exclude any of them with the available sources.

2. We can't determine something as fundamental as the impact this event had - likewise making it impossible to reflect on consequences or aftermath of the event.

3. We can't determine for sure what led up to this event. One of the sources explains following: "Venetian attack on northern Albania delayed Skanderbeg in coming to Hunyadi's aid". ^[4]. Other sources will also explain a different role Brankovic had prior to this event.^[5]^[6] Contradicting as to what's being explained as the "background of the event" on this article.

The huge gap of information available about the event, and it's background and aftermath, creates huge room for speculation. There is just too much we cannot exclude did and did not happen. Therefore, I agree this event should be mentioned and discussed, but rather as a part of a wider article. Aleksandarstankov (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Frashëri, Kristo (2002). Gjergj Kastrioti Skënderbeu: jeta dhe vepra (1405-1468) (in Albanian). Botimet Toena. pp. 160–161. ISBN 978-99927-1-627-4.
^ Ciriacono, Salvatore (October 15, 2014). "Scanderbeg tra storia e storiografia" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 October 2020. «Indignato per non aver potuto correre in aiuto di Hunyadi, in una guerra che forse poteva mutare il destino dell'Albania e dell'intera penisola balcanica, Scanderbeg corse per la Serbia saccheggiandola e mettendola a ferro e fuoco, per punire il krajl infedele. Se ne tornò poi a Croia, amareggiato, verso la fine di novembre»
^ Setton, Kenneth Meyer (1976). The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571: The fifteenth century. American Philosophical Society. p. 100. ISBN 978-0-87169-127-9. Scanderbeg intended to go "peronalmente" with an army to assist Hunyadi, but was prevented from doing so by Branković, whose lands he ravaged as punishment for the Serbian desertion of the Christian cause.
^ Sedlar 1994, p. 393.
^ Babinger 1992, p. 40.
^ Vaughan, Dorothy Margaret (1 June 1954). Europe and the Turk: a pattern of alliances, 1350–1700. AMS Press. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-404-56332-5. Archived from the original on 9 April 2023. Retrieved 12 September 2012.

Keep per WP:N in the sense that there are reliable sources which do offer significant coverage of the events and their historical context. The article just needs cleanup and expansion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lynda Ddane[edit]

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

Insufficient Notability and Reliance on Primary Sources: The article presents information about Lynda Ddane's background, education, and career; however, it fails to establish her notability as required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The majority of the sources cited within the article appear to be primary sources or promotional content, rather than reliable and independent secondary sources Edit.pdf (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Radio, Television, and Uganda. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable media personality, a "born-again introvert" is about the best reference, and it's celebrity fluff. Oaktree b (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oryon Networks[edit]

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

The article does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. There are no references to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, such as news articles, books, or academic publications, which would establish the company's notability. Edit.pdf (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Websites, and Singapore. Skynxnex (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnotable and promotional. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in gnews, which is surprising for a Singaporean company. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Angus transmitting station. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tay Bridge transmitting station[edit]

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

Minor television and radio relay station, entire article is WP:OR and fails WP:GNG. No sources cited. WP:NOTDIR of minor TV/radio relay stations and their frequencies. Flip Format (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Flip Format (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what's verifiable to Angus transmitting station (the transmitter it relays). Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Angus transmitting station per Thryduulf's suggestion. SBKSPP (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berwick-upon-Tweed television relay station[edit]

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

Minor television and radio relay station, entire article is WP:OR and fails WP:GNG. No sources cited. WP:NOTDIR of minor TV/radio relay stations and their frequencies. Flip Format (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Virtua Fighter characters. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Bryant (Virtua Fighter)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable playable character, reception section is full of cruft and listicles. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, Video games, and Japan. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Virtua Fighter characters, per nom. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Virtua Fighter characters. Her reception made me dry heave a little. Frankly, a character should be defined by more than simply their appearance to merit a standalone page, otherwise it suggests they are not significant, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's some magazine mentioning about her, but was kept without improvements at first afd nom. Per WP:TNT. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found this interview, which would be good to flesh out her development post merge, but it's simply WP:PRIMARY and can't count towards notability. Most likely, a lot of the magazine mentions thrown at people in the last AfD were trivial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Virtua Fighter characters: Per nom's rationale. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Virtua Fighter characters per all. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the keep arguments from last time hold up. And since this was eight years ago, she may have more coverage now. In the book From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and Computer Games, Sarah has two pages covering her. The last AFD also brought up other sources that were, for some reason, not incorporated into the article. MoonJet (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Virtua Fighter characters.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Grade Summit[edit]

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

Unsourced article since 2007, did ask a subject-matter expert for potential sources but they were only able to direct me to USGS and PeakVisor, neither of which includes significant coverage of the subject. Fails WP:NGEO. FOARP (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGEO, same as any other random hill. Can't find anything with actual good coverage, everything only shows weather, height, roads nearby, etc. and nothing to really qualify for a Wikipedia article.

Vamsi20 (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of adventure parks in Hungary[edit]

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

There has been a disputed tag on the top of the page since 2017 about the criteria for inclusion but no discussion on the talkpage. Almost none of the parks are bluelinks, very difficult to assess what the page is specifically about or whether the contents are relevant. WP:NOTGUIDE JMWt (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this seems like a travel guide so per WP:NOTGUIDE i say delete. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Only one article has a bluelink and even that article is a bare stub. Ajf773 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created by a single purpose account, originally linking to the websites of everything listed. Only three links to things on the list. One is to the town of Balatonboglár which doesn't list anything about any adventure park, just has a picture of statues. Tordas links to a one sentence article about a village. Annagora Aquapark links to a two sentence article for a place with "3 water slides for children, 12 big slides". Dream Focus 19:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

John Ross (blogger)[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NPROF, and WP:BASIC for that matter, due to lack of multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Sources in the article are mostly brief mentions in the context of his time as one of a largish group of advisors to Ken Livingstone, former mayor of London, and are therefore not WP:SIGCOV. The exceptions to this are op-ed pieces, interviews and commercial book-store websites (and therefore not reliable/independent). The Guardian "profile" is a single-sentence mention summing to 15 words. No instances of WP:SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE. WP:BLP article so should be based on high-quality sources. FOARP (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, Journalism, and China. TJMSmith (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ There's a sportsperson with the same name, nothing found for this person. no sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I expect there will be a WP:AUTHOR case here. We need to look for further reviews for:
- China’s Great Road: Lessons for Marxist Theory and Socialist Practices (2021) [21]
- Thatcher and Friends: The Anatomy of the Tory Party (1983)
- The Great Chess Game (2016)[[22]]
- Don’t Misunderstand China’s Economy (date?)

It's difficult because a number of relevant sources are likely to not be available online because they're from the early 80's or in Chinese.Jahaza (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's also difficult because there's another John Ross, author of You Don't Know China, who has a web presence as a China expert. Jahaza (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This[23] Evening Standard article, was actually published in October 2007 and is SIGCOV. Jahaza (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's substantial coverage of Ross in Andrew Hosken's Ken: The Ups and Downs of Ken Livingstone (you can see some of that content here[24]). That plus the Evening Standard article, plus the book reviews already identified, plus this in the Sunday Telegraph[25]. (There are also other less useful sources that document smaller facts and opinions[26][27][28][29][30][31][32])Jahaza (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jahaza, I'm not sure about the WP:NAUTHOR pass but I'm OK to withdraw based on the Evening Standard and book coverage. There's already a Delete !vote on the board so I can't withdraw at this point though unless Oaktree b withdraws - what do you think Oaktree? FOARP (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rescinding my vote above. I'm ok if it gets kept, with the new sources, as above. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Oaktree b. In our defence, the refs in the article are bad and the many other John Rosses out there complicated performing a WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iron man (sports streak)[edit]

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

An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of people who are in some way "iron men", and a diatribe of prose about various people who did the thing for a long time. Article seems to suggest that McGinnity was the first person to be given such a moniker, but the sources don't suggest that.

Seems like a thing more suitable to being used at the already existing Iron Man, where's there is scope for a WP:CONCEPTDAB. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sports. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - as an encyclopedic concept, this easily passes GNG with in-depth coverage that exists on the web. Nominator (and other editors discussing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#The mess at Cinderella (sports)) appears mostly to have an issue with the table at the bottom of the article, and to that I repeat what Bagumba said in that discussion, AfD is not cleanup. Demonstration of GNG pass: ESPN The Hockey News mlb.com as well as numerous mentions in articles detailing specific athletes/leagues: Frontstretch CBC.ca etc. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But these just refer to long-held records. Just because a term is used frequently, it doesn't make the concept itself notable. It has no real place of being different from, say winning streak, or losing streak (which, should probably be merged). It's just a streak set about by someone doing the thing consistently. How is this distinct from the idea of "Iron Man" that would cover the start of the DAB page? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I disagree that "there is scope for a WP:CONCEPTDAB." at either Iron Man, which is an article about a fictional character (and you have referred to with this capitalization multiple times now), or Ironman, which is a DAB which contains numerous entries including the aforementioned character and Iron Man (song), neither of which have anything to do with the sports concept. What is covering the start of the DAB frankly, shouldn't be there as "Ironman" has WP:NOPRIMARY and the list of people should be moved to a relevant section in that DAB page or removed entirely, since the link to this article exists in that DAB, too. Even within the Sports section, Iron man match and Ironman triathlon are entirely different concepts from this one.

Secondly, the concept is based heavily on "the thing", which is holding a record for most consecutive starts. It is not merely a simple winning or losing streak. MLB.com (which would need attribution in wiki-voice for this specific claim since it is talking about an MLB record) says that Ripkin's record "feels like one of the sport’s most unbreakable records", while Frontstretch says that Jeff Gordon's "won’t be on thin ice for a long, long time." after Kevin Harvick retires following this season.

The prose needs serious WP:TNT, and the table could use some trimming to address your issue with WP:INDISCRIMINATE (I cannot find anything describing Lewis Hamilton's record in my searches so far, for example). But I disagree entirely with your assertions here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable, regardless of the current quality of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ghost of Dan Gurney. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a widely used term, Ghost of Dan Gurney said it well. » Bray _talk 19:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A widely used term that passes WP:GNG as there are several significant sources that discuss both individual and lists of Iron men in sports. Some examples: The Iron Man Club: Top Consecutive Games Played Streaks in Sports (SportsCasting), Beyond the Streak: The Iron Men of Sports (Medium), Phil Kessel joins Ripken, Favre and other ironman athletes (ESPN), Nets’ Mikal Bridges is more than NBA’s Iron Man; he’s determined: ‘I just want to play every game’ (The Athletic), A Salute to the NFL Ironmen of the Decade (Sports Illustrated), PBA: LA Tenorio’s ‘Iron Man’ streak ends at 744 games (Philippines Daily Inquirer), Phil Kessel ties NHL's 'Iron Man' record with 989 straight games (CBS News). Alvaldi (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of the article, I'll defer to others judgement on the matter, but the idea regarding creating the article in the first place is that the concept of a sports "iron man" is widely regarded in many major sports and is notable in those circles, and commented on and newsworthy, which is significant and is of interest to many in the sports world, and written about quite a bit. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyas Ismayilli[edit]

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

Fails GNG. He's the head of a public union which doesn't directly make him notable — Toghrul R (t) 07:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Azerbaijan. — Toghrul R (t) 07:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scouting-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails GNG and NBIO. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and has only one reference and i cannot find more SIGCOV. Nagol0929 (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas D'Agostino (motivational speaker)[edit]

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

PR whitewash article (possibly self-created or by someone close to the subject), what few references exist are routine coverage of a would be politician who never won a race. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The trouble with these puffy style articles is the wide range of 'talents' the subjects are frequently claimed to have. Do we judge notability as a motivational speaker, author, coach, radio host, nonprofit founder or entrepreneur? In this case, we fail on all counts - fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NPOL, WP:NBUSINESSPERSON etc etc Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very promotional, as stated in the above reply.

Vamsi20 (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Flynn Gadbois[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Further, this article is essentially about one event and fails notability for that reason. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Man brings flowers to ex-wife" is not at GNG. Beyond the few sources mentioning his one post, he's not notable as a lawyer, I don't find anything else we can use.

Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, and Massachusetts. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very clearly fails GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really only notable from one event. best, GPL93 (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Dozens of people per day get their viral 15 seconds of fame, and no one ever hears of them -- or thinks of them -- again. This is why we have WP:ONEEVENT. Ravenswing 00:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. Fails WP:GNG lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spammy Courcelles (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sơn Tinh (liquor)[edit]

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

Many parts of this article is heavily toned as an advertisement, while carrying insufficient notability due to lack of independent source coverage. I believe this artice cannot be further improved without heavily truncating this article to a stub or maybe even shorter, and I've found little discussion or information about this company/product outside of store pages. Reserve scav (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Vietnam. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with massive cleanup, or speedy delete per WP:G11 and WP:TNT. The WP:NOTWINE essay has some guidance about notability of individual wines in the context of competitions, and this product seems to have participated in some notable ones, if sources can be found to verify what is claimed in the article. If kept, the article needs to be pared down drastically and rewritten. I wouldn't object to draftification for incubation or improvement. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the list of awards, and some of them does appear to actually hold up (the 2019 SWSC awards and SFWSC 2013 awards) but so far they are the only ones I've found with readily available records. I'm in the process of looking for more but if I do then I'll close this proposal and work on a draft rewrite of the article. Reserve scav (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,

Son Tinh is the first Vietnamese traditional liquor that has been internationally awarded. The awards are by renowned tasting/competition industry organisations. For Vietnamese standards this is exceptional and a first step to introduce Vietnamese liquor internationally.

Also, in a fast-changing, developing country like Vietnam the perseverance of a (liquor) brand over many years is a very rare/unique fact.

I am the owner of the brand and can confirm all information is accurate. Markusmadeja (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, and I understand your concern. However, many of the awards referenced in your writing either does not lead to an award listing or a list of winners for that competition, or is blocked behind a paywall (see Asian Spirits Master 2014). In addition, I found some of the sections a bit irrelevant and hard to get its purpose in the article, such as the drinking style and category branding. It may just be just a me thing, but as Anachronist said above, the article is in need of heavy rewriting, and I'd be glad to assist you in coming up with a new draft. Reserve scav (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Ruronep, the rice wine article. Seems promotional otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Happy to restore to userspace if anyone wants to move to Wikivoyage and see if they want it. Courcelles (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Lahore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTTRAVEL. Just a list of unremarkable bus routes in one particular city. Ajf773 (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Transportation, and Pakistan. Ajf773 (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: As per nom. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Transport in Lahore#Buses. This is excessively detailed, but a summary of the principal routes/area of coverage in an article about a city's transport is encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is very helpful with regard to its subject for citizens using local transport in Lahore. It's always difficult to find buses given Lahore's urban complexities and traffic. Wikipedia is first result Google will give incase someone search it. Transport authority's website is with a difficult interface and with change of routes it is less likely that they update it earlier so this article can be easily updated by anyone. Muneebll (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL, is not a compelling enough reason to keep this article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are many similar articles like that present on Wikipedia, are we going to delete them all? Or if they can stay, why can't this article? Muneebll (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Articles are present in Wikipedia because they meet specific notability requirements, those that don't usually get deleted. London has close to 100 bus routes that have a long history and are deemed notable, so a list of them is also notable. Not seeing anything remarkable about any in Lahore. Ajf773 (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Getting around a transit system is not what an encyclopedia is for; that information belongs at Wikivoyage. Fails WP:LISTN. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear violation of WP:NOTDIR. This information belongs on Wikivoyage. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we aren't here to help people decide what bus to catch. I don't even think it's for Wikivoyage, but that's for them to decide. Without any sort of scholarly discussion on why the routes matter, this is just another list. Beyond sources reproducing what's here, there are none for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of spiral tunnels and tunnels on a curved alignment[edit]

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

list is OR and synth, I couldn't find any reliable source that shows the notability of such list. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#List_of_spiral_tunnels_and_tunnels_on_a_curved_alignment, and pinging Trainsandotherthings who commented there. Artem.G (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of these individual tunnels are notable, but there's no evidence to support them being notable as a group. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would think it's impossible to have a spiral tunnel that isn't curved, so the list doesn't make sense. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: I think that you're reading the title as a single group. To me, "List of spiral tunnels and tunnels on a curved alignment" reads as containing two groups: (i) spiral tunnels (ii) tunnels on a curved alignment. Whilst all spiral tunnels are curved, not all curved tunnels are spiral. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok, that makes sense. Oaktree b (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dewiki seems to have articles and lists for both spiral loops (Kreiskehren) and curved tunnles (Kehrtunnel), with plenty of sources to establish the distinct notability of each. small jars tc 15:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some of the tunnels may be notable on their own, but I do not see anything discussing this topic as a set. Appears to be WP:SYNTH. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According WP:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not important per se. -- ZH8000 (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you even talking about? That doesn't make any sense, you're implying this article gets a carve-out from SYNTH by grossly misinterpreting part of an explanatory essay that does not in any way support that position. Regardless, this does not meet WP:NLIST. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Randykitty (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of international presidential trips made by Dmitry Medvedev[edit]

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

Fails NLIST and CLN/AOAL. No sources show this list has been previously discussed as a group by IS RS. All listed events are nn and do not have articles, so list serves no CLN or AOAL navigation purposes. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a rationale to keep a list that fails all criteria. // Timothy :: talk 23:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If everything on the list was notable enough to get coverage, as the references seem to indicate, then it is a valid list article. List articles aren't just for navigational purposes. Nothing wrong with this or the many others listed at Category:Lists of diplomatic visits by heads of state or Category:Diplomatic visits by heads of state. Dream Focus 16:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list of his fascist posts on Telegram, or of distasteful memes about him, would be more interesting, and probably better meet the notability guidelines for lists. —Michael Z. 04:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is going on here? “Keep” voters are wilfully ignoring, nay misleading us about the fact that this list is practically entirely sourced with a single, WP:unreliable, non-WP:independent, WP:primary source. It can literally only exist as a WP:link farm promoting the Kremlin. —Michael Z. 03:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the referencing is insufficient, this is not a reason for immediate deletion because it can be improved (unless it is not possible to find RS). But you are resorting to ad hominem. Mellk (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The visits themselves are individually notable (e.g. random examples, [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]) and were covered in contemporary sources. The choices of countries he chose to travel to were likewise discussed and analyzed in contemporary coverage, satisfying the core of WP:NLIST (examples pulled at random including [38], [39]). Although Medvedev in hindsight was clearly just a lackey, it wasn't always covered as such at the time, and his state visits and choices were given a sufficient level of analysis that this article should be kept. Nomader (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In which of those this “has been discussed as a group or set”? —Michael Z. 14:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd respectfully prefer to avoid WP:REFBOMBING, but I think that where there are articles discussing multiple visits that he is doing and why he is doing them, that it would suit the criterion here -- it doesn't need to be a holistic discussion of all of his visits. Nomader (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It need to discuss them as a group or a set. One of your “satisfying” references was published before he was president. The other is about the relationship with China including visits there only. You are not even REFPEASHOOTING, because none of them indicate notability of this set. —Michael Z. 21:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The individual visits were covered in press, but it does not mean any of them was notable. We can not have a page about his every visit. If we had such pages, then this could be an argument. Hence, we should not have such list even for visits by Putin. Saying that, great images (especially one with Gaddafi) were uploaded from kremlin.ru by banned user Russavia. My very best wishes (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus. Category:Lists of diplomatic visits by heads of state shows this is a valid list. The delete arguments are weak and are off-topic. Mellk (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That a category exists does not automatically make every conceivable category member a notable subject. —Michael Z. 05:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing Nomader as demonstrated notability in this case. Mellk (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does not provide any significant information. WP:SOAP, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Indeed, even a list of his posts/memes would be more interesting and significant. My very best wishes (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you read their sources and actually concluded that that is the case according to the guidelines, then I am disappointed in you. —Michael Z. 15:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Reuters and France24 are both considered widely reliable according to WP:RS standards which is why I used them per our guidelines. Nomader (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their reliability is not in question. —Michael Z. 01:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See for example:[40]. Mellk (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I decided to do some digging on other AfDs for articles of this category, because although each of Medvedev's visits have reliable sources covering them individually and clearly we want to avoid flooding his entire article with descriptions of them (they're each individually notable), I wondered have there been other discussions about this? Turns out there has been: Imran Khan trips, Sheikh Hasina trips, and actually a nomination for literally all of the lists of this type as violating WP:NOTDATABASE. All resulted in strong keeps (and in my opinion, strong precedents for keeps that should be followed here as well).

Personally, I think that Medvedev is absolute human garbage and it's downright obvious today that he held little real power while he was in office (as it was obvious then). I would much rather read an article per My very best wishes's jestful suggestion of making a list of his memes as being more interesting. BUT -- I think it's clear that the notability exists for this list to exist (per the sources I found, Dream Focus's rationale, and the precedent of all of these AfDs from the past year). I'd recommend that the lead include information about how Putin was widely seen as still being the leader of Russia during this time and some broader notes about his presidency from that respect. Nomader (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of staff exists, sure. Some commenters say he is prepped to "succeed" Putin once again and negotiate the end of the war or strike the enemy [41]. So whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NLIST Lightburst (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not. —Michael Z. 01:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the criticism made by the delete voters that there are not sufficient sources covering this as "a group or a set". Normally this would be enough to establish deletion under WP:NLIST. However, NLIST also has other language to examine, namely the following, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory." In other words, the policy language leaves open for the possibility of lists to be kept that do not meet the "group or a set" standard but have some other argued for rationale. In this case, we have a large number of sources covering the international travel of a major world leader. The quality and number of sources covering the topic, if only in pieces, generally shows a strong interest in the international trips made by Dmitry Medvedev. I believe such a list can be easily verified and supported in RS, and is of general encyclopedic value for our coverage of a major world leader as the visits by a foreign head of state by a major world power are going to have a wide impact on a variety of topics such as foreign policy, international relations, etc. In other words, it's encyclopedic, it's verifiable, it's useful, and as a list seems to be in line with all of Wikipedia's core five pillars.4meter4 (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty good recipe, but you shouldn’t overlook that your only ingredient is poop. Kremlin.ru is linked eighty-five times! Remove those citations, and this list disappears completely, showing that the argument does not apply. —Michael Z. 02:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a cross-categorization list (such as "Lists of X of Y"). It is a "List of international presidential trips made by Dmitry Medvedev (X)", not a "List of international presidential trips (X) made by Russian heads of state (Y)"

The above boils down to WP:ILIKEIT which is not a valid arguement to keep an article. // Timothy :: talk 09:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually one could argue that this is a subset of the list of Medvedev's Presidential trips, so it is cross categorisation ... not to mention, these are also subsets of Medvedev's official trips (ie Prime Ministerial and Presidential travel combined). His Presidential visits to the Kuriles or Chechnya or Ingushetia or Degestan all received interenational coverage and had international implications. My point here, however, is not to debate cross-categorisation, but rather to emphasise that there's widespread sourcing and repeated coverage of more or less every movement (domestic and foreign) of the leaders of the major powers. Were this a discussion about the the list of foreign trips of the President of the Maldives, sure, the grounds for notability would be a lot weaker. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, as indicated above, there's a prevalent community consensus to keep articles of these types (and nothing to indicate a change in that consensus). Second, as indicated above, satisfying WP:NLIST is not reducible to a single threshold of sourcing related to the set/class. Third, the list can be reasonably justified as an WP:OKFORK of Presidency of Dmitry Medvedev#Foreign policy. Fourth, if Kremlin.ru is not considered reliable for this information there's a plethora of other sourcing available ... although I see no argument presented here why we should consider it unreliable for the *sole* purpose of identifying dates and locations ... back in the good old days of Kremlinology, Pravda was perfectly reliable for ascertaining the composition of, for example, the CCCPSU. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no evidence of any consensus to keep articles “of these types.” There is a consensus to keep articles that meet notability guidelines, and the existence of articles doesn’t indicate otherwise.

Regardless of NLIST, this list is practically sole-sourced to an unreliable, non-neutral, primary source (Kremlin.org).

How is this an OKFORK?

Fourth, seriously? The Kremlin is not a neutral source about the Kremlin for determining notability. Well where is this plethora? —Michael Z. 20:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still no sources showing this meets LISTN or CLN/AOAL. The above is either opinion or OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which are not valid reasons to Keep. All the sources related to Kremlin.ru are not independent, and Russian state websites are never a RS for information. // Timothy :: talk 09:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A source not being independent is not grounds per se that it cannot be used (WP:PRIMARY); we just need to use them with care. We use the Academy to source Oscar winners. The question is the information being sourced; political analysis of a trip, its success or failure etc, we would only use kremlin.ru as a source for the "official" viewpoint, but there's hardly anything contestible over the date and location of a presidential trip, it's just common sense. FWIW, there is however other sourcing which includes Medvedev in terms of multi-site visits; the US State Department offers a handy list: Visits By Foreign Leaders of Russia. Moreoever, simple searches show single texts which discuss multiple visits undertaken by Medvedev as part of foreign policy of that time (eg Duncan (2013) speaks of visits to Kazakhstan and China (and treats the visit to Kuriles as disputed territory); De Haas (2010) discusses visits to China, Germany) - these visits all constitute an element of Russian foreign policy that is simply too large to cover in the Medvedev Presidency article, hence this is an acceptable WP:OKFORK. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sources supporting that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nomader and Goldsztajn. While the present sourcing is inadequate there is no question that better sourcing exists for all of these visits. Mccapra (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goldsztajn. Sourcing this to the Kremlin is perfectly fine. Having links to articles such as 2009 G20 London summit in the table would lead to the article more clearly meeting WP:NLIST. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Gold Coast Titans season[edit]

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

Another contested redirect/draft with zero improvement. Zero independent, reliable secondary sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: adheres to WP:NSEASONS and there's more than enough presumed and significant coverage available for editors to expand upon the article in time using simple searches, aka WP:NEXISTS. Storm machine (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSEASONS. Every week there are articles discussing their season. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LiveAboard.com[edit]

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

I placed a PROD with the rationale "An article describing a website's business proposition, supported by references to articles about the broad area of interest plus announcement-based coverage of a competition and a partnership deal. No evidence that this firm has attained notability." The PROD was removed by an IP with the comment "Passes GNG" so I am now bringing it to AfD with the same rationale as before. AllyD (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Netherlands. AllyD (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete PROMO for the contest is all I find. Lack of sources.Oaktree b (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only three of the references even mention the website. One only mentions that the website is having a sweepstake for a shark dive trip and nothing else about it; the other two are about a partnership between Scuba.com and LiveAboard.com, one of which is written by the staff at Scuba.com, making it non-independent, and the other of which appears on the same website as the first ref, meaning it has only been covered by one source. Fails WP:GNG. benǝʇᴉɯ 10:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The IP was wrong: insufficient WP:RS to pass GNG. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creator had the right but no content-based justification for removing the PROD. gidonb (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's snowing! gidonb (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Guyanese representative cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raydon Franklin[edit]

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

Lack of coverage to meet WP:GNG. The only source is a statistical database that says he played in one first-class cricket match. Walt Yoder (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and South America. Walt Yoder (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Guyanese representative cricketers Looks to fail WP:GNG, however there's a suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The debut and last match dates are also not known, a statistical source only says that he played one first-class match. Doesn't contain significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. RoboCric (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect as above seems sensible here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revolver bond[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has no reliable sources Brachy08 (Never Gonna Give You Up, Never Gonna Let You Down) 06:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merge content into whatever article exists for the Bond (Financial instrument). Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as WP:OR. The only uses of this term that I am able to find are derived from this page. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 02:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If someone wants to work on this in draft, I'm happy to provide it. Star Mississippi 14:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fakt Marathi Cine Sanman[edit]

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

A year old award ceremony held only once so far. No notability through WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Maharashtra. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: four source ABP Majha [42] , Loksatta [43] , Sakal [44] and News18 India [45]. WP:GNG pass ~ ‪AShiv1212‬ (talk) 08:0, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

An award function; which is hopefully planned to be conducted annually (?!), should be considered notable if it has at least happened twice. One time event cant win notability. Also, presence of notable personalities is bound to get media coverage. But non of the 4 3 sources mention anything about the awards. Like for example are the awards annual?! What is the entry criteria?! What is the actual nature of award (like trophy, cash, etc.)? Is it popular choice award or critic award? How neutral are they? etc. (The two sources of ABP Majha & Loksatta are verbatim same; except that Loksatta forgot to scroll till the end and hence didn't paste the last para.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd prefer to wait to see if there is a second awards ceremony (with coverage) this year before deleting. So either keep or draft-ify. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 14:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geekom[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Almost all the coverage is product reviews in technology/computer press. Would need more third party coverage like major newspapers to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, Computing, and Taiwan. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should not comment as I had a brief email exchange with a Geekom employee and thus a conflict of interest. I am willing to accept that I misjudged the article-worthiness of Geekom. They are, however, one of the largest producers of a niche market, which is why I considered and eventually undertook a request to make the article. If the majority of the participants in this discussion agree that Geekom does not yet have enough coverage to warrant its own article, then I propose a redirect to nettop instead. I would argue that the company has enough relevance in its own niche to warrant a mention the article of its niche (nettop). Admittedly, the nettop article itself is also poorly sourced, but I am willing to work on and transform that article while sticking to scholarly and major news sources. I acknowledge that my conflict of interest may affect the consideration of my comment by other contributors, but I believe that I should at least say something since I was responsible for this article's creation in the first place. Yue🌙 06:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Conflict of interest says:
  Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest.
  If the extent of your interactions with the employee was to request permission to upload File:GEEKOM Mini IT8.jpg, File:GEEKOM Mini IT11.jpg, and File:GEEKOM BookFun 11.jpg, I don't consider having "a brief email exchange with a Geekom employee" to cause you to have a conflict of interest about the company. If you have a deeper relationship with the company ("yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships"), then you have a conflict of interest. Otherwise, I think you do not have a conflict of interest.
  By the way, per Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online, I recommend sending an email to [email protected] documenting the permission you received for the photos. Without documentation, the photos could be deleted as lacking proof that they were released under a free license. Cunard (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Cunard: I will email them when I can to avoid such troubles in the future. I appreciate the recommendation, thank you! Yue🌙 19:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in some form since Geekom's products have received the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The article can be renamed to be "Products of Geekom", "Geekom's products", or "List of Geekom products" to address concerns that the reliable sources focus on Geekom's products instead of Geekom the company.
Sources
1. Geekom IT8 Mini PC reviews:
  1. Elliott, Matthew (2022-06-26). "Geekom IT8 Mini PC Review: An ultracompact desktop that works right out of the box". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2023-04-04.
    The review notes: "The Geekom IT8 Mini is about as far as you can get from a full-tower gaming PC, but its Intel integrated graphics are sufficient for smoothly running Windows 11 and streaming HD video. The scores of the NZXT H1 Mini Plus with its GeForce RTX 3060 GPU show the colossal gap in graphics performance between a game-worthy system and a kiosk or streamer like the Geekom."
  2. Athow, Desire (2022-03-14). "Geekom IT8 Mini workstation PC review: Small and mighty but with an old processor, is this a mini workstation to remember or forget?". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2023-04-04.
    The review notes: "The GEEKOM IT8 surprised us by delivering a deftly engineered NUC-like mini PC that will shine as a micro workstation. Businesses will appreciate the presence of Windows 11 Pro and the plethora of ports although the lack of Wi-Fi 6 and solid after sales support network may cause some to stay away from this bargain."
  3. Palmer, Jordan (2022-04-28). "Geekom Mini IT8 review: Big value in this mini PC: This NUC competitor hits hard". Tom's Guide. Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2023-04-04.
    The review notes: "For a starting price of $439, the Mini IT8 is a great little desktop PC. It’s unassuming, you can mount it to the back of your monitor, and it’s upgradeable. It’s hard to find a better option for this money, especially when the alternative is spending a lot more cash on an expensive mini computer for performance gains you may not even notice. The Geekom Mini IT8 would make a great family PC or low-cost server. With its NVMe drive and 3200MHz RAM, it punches well above its weight."
2. Geekom BookFun 11 review:
  1. Rossman, Jim (2022-04-21). "Gaming laptop brings understated looks and plenty of speed: Geekom's first laptop model is geared toward the gamer market with fast CPU and graphics — and you can add extra storage and RAM". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2023-04-04.
    The review notes: "Pros: Fast CPU and GPU; user upgradable RAM and SSD, Thunderbolt 4. Cons: No touch screen option. Brand is not very well known. Bottom line: I’ve enjoyed my testing of the BookFun 11. Good performance and solid design."
3. Geekom Mini IT 11 reviews:
  1. Rossman, Jim (2022-12-29). "Geekom Mini PC packs a lot into a very small case: It has some useful features, users can upgrade the RAM and it's so small it practically disappears on your desk". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2023-04-04.
    The review notes: "The Geekom IT 11, with its 11th generation Intel CPU and upgradeable RAM and storage should keep this machine viable for a long time."
  2. Pickavance, Mark (2022-12-05). "Geekom Mini IT11 review: Another polished performer from Geekom". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2023-04-04.
    The review notes: "Another high-quality design from Geekom offers a good computing platform and GPU combination. Able to cope with tasks that would swamp other NUC designs. The only weakness here is the cheap NVMe drive that comes pre-installed."
  3. Palmer, Jordan (2022-10-26). "Geekom Mini IT11 review: This little workhorse is ideal for most mini PC needs". Tom's Guide. Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2023-04-04.
    The review notes: "With an 11th-gen Intel processor, the Geekom Mini IT11 is a little workhorse that is perfect for most people who need a mini PC. It’s got solid specs, and like other Geekom machines we've reviewed, you can upgrade the RAM and storage."
4. Geekom MiniAir 11 Mini PC reviews:
  1. Pickavance, Mark (2022-12-01). "Geekom MiniAir 11 Mini PC: A classy and affordable NUC". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2023-04-04.
    The review notes: "A finely constructed and easily upgradable NUC design. The only issues with this machine over others are the mediocre performance of the CPU/GPU and that the M.2 slot is only two lanes, limiting speed. For the cost, a decent machine."
  2. Palmer, Jordan (2022-08-11). "Geekom MiniAir 11 review: The ideal budget mini PC: If you're on a tight budget, the MiniAir 11 is great". Tom's Guide. Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2023-04-04.
    The review notes: "A super affordable mini PC, the Geekom MiniAir 11 gets the job done with just the right amount of horsepower. It won’t win any races, but for light tasks such as web browsing, social media, video watching, and document editing, it’s a great option. It also features user-upgradeable RAM and storage."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Geekom's products to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep or redirect to an article about the products. COI is ok so long as it's declared and handled correctly. I'm hoping you'll contribute further to Wikipedia! Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ArcAngel (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Turkey bus crashes[edit]

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

Not WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. Aintabli (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Changed my mind. Aintabli (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Aintabli (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Notability (events), but also borders on WP:SYNTH between two "reportedly unlinked" topics. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a big story in Turkey last year and resulted in a large death toll. And this article was then translated into four other languages. Moondragon21 (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. Skynxnex (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and well-covered events, both in the Turkish and international press, with high numbers of casualties. It's perfectly alright for someone not to like that these events were tied together in the press but that does not make it into WP:SYNTH or anything near to that! If events were COMMONLY tied together then this is NOT OR. We absolutely should, as done right here, follow in the footsteps of others. gidonb (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced, plenty of coverage to pass WP:GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GNG requires sustained coverage per WP:NSUSTAINED. News events do not qualify for GNG simply because they were covered, even if it was by several news outlets. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honeygain[edit]

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

An article about a connection sharing app/company launched in 2019. Previous article instances were speedy-deleted 3 times in 2020-1, after which an admin-only creation restriction was in force for one year. This new instance was created on the 11th edit by a new user. It references a couple of recent online articles about this firm's proposition and its sector: to my mind, it is promotional coverage falling short of what is required to demonstrate attained notability here, but given the history, I think it is worth bringing to AfD seeking a persisting decision. AllyD (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Products, and Internet. AllyD (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this meets WP:GNG/WP:NSOFT. At best it could redirect somewhere, but it is a WP:ORPHAN, so, really, let's be frank: this is spam about an app that has next to zero real world impact. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still appears PROMO. I don't find much in RS talking about it.Oaktree b (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's all PR newswires, so PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siraj Mia Memorial Model School[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage about this school to show notability. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After searches of the usual types, I concur with the nominator that there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources, so it fails WP:NSCHOOL. It is listed in the article on the surrounding community, Badda Thana. So in principle it could be redirected there, but it isn't clear why it, alone out of a dozen secondary schools in the area, even rates a mention there. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Max Pucher[edit]

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

BLP issues - completely unsourced. It's uncertain if the head of Union Souveränität is the same person as the racecar driver. Walt Yoder (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Austria. Walt Yoder (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have removed the BLP violating text in the article (most of it). Perhaps surprisingly, Pucher has virtually zero coverage out there and this article is totally unsourced. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no SIGCOV. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UltraFly Model Corporation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was over 13 years ago. Could not find any coverage in English. Would reconsider if someone found indepth Chinese sources. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Taiwan. AllyD (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional for a dead business. No coverage. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: interviews (ref 1) can sometimes be reliable/notable, but not in this case with so few sources. The second ref is WP:LINKEDIN. Asparagusus (interaction) 13:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article setting out the former product proposition of a company, supported by an interview and a shopping site EL. No evidence of attained notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Oliver Heldens discography. There is a consensus for a redirect and a slight one for this target. As ever, that can be tweaked editorially id needed. Star Mississippi 14:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10 Out of 10 (Oliver Heldens song)[edit]

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

Delete Fails GNG and NSONG. Refs are promotional, primary. BEFORE showed nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Source eval:

Instagram :: 1. "This has been my absolute dream gag fantasy bucket list of artists to have a song with". Instagram. 6 March 2023. Retrieved 9 April 2023.
Promo :: 2. ^ "Got a collab coming up with 1 of them, who do you think it is?". 26 March 2023. Retrieved 9 April 2023.
Twitter :: 3. ^ "Drum roll please..." Twitter. 29 March 2023. Retrieved 9 April 2023.
Youtube :: 4. ^ Heldens, Oliver (1 April 2023). "Episode 457". Heldeep Radio. Archived from the original on 6 April 2023. Retrieved 1 April 2023.
Promo :: 5. ^ Vigil, Dom (6 April 2023). "Oliver Heldens Drops New Track, "10 out of 10" With Kylie Minogue". Prelude Press. Retrieved 9 April 2023.
Promo :: 6. ^ Cihak, Lennon (5 April 2023). "OLIVER HELDENS TAPS POP ICON KYLIE MINOGUE FOR INFECTIOUS SINGLE, "10 OUT OF 10"". edm.com. Retrieved 9 April 2023.
Stats :: 7. ^ "Official Singles Downloads Chart Top 100". Official Charts Company. Retrieved 10 April 2023.

Nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection if a consensus for redirect to Oliver Heldens. // Timothy :: talk 02:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect, for now, to Oliver Heldens. However, since it recently landed in the top 20 of a British singles chart... --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oliver Heldens discography#As lead artist. As Slgrandson suggested, though, this could be going somewhere big on the charts. I'm considering this a case of possible TOOSOON rather than a guaranteed non-notable. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Netherlands and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split to Oliver Heldens discography and Kylie Minogue singles discography.

Brachy08 (Let’s Have A Kiki, I Wanna Have a Kiki) 00:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cutting through the noise, this is a BLP1E and its existence is not justified by policy. Courcelles (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Hu (IIG)[edit]

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

Absent the coverage on his crime, there is no in-depth coverage about this person. Case of WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sources are enough for GNG. Wei Yuqi (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has Bloomberg and Washington Post as sources so there's GNG. Martin Augustyn Zhou (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources meet WP:GNG. BLP1E requires subject to have small role in event, but that is not the case here (see WP:NOTBLP1E).Shubham BaGi (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get some input from some uninvovled editors, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally agree with Onel5969 ^{TT me}--Bexaendos (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: what onel5969 wrote is not true. There is significant coverage from [46], [47], [48] on David Hu's work as CIO before 2022 when he was sentenced. Coverage meets WP:GNG. Kwwis (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Those links are all about his scam - it's even obvious from the URLs alone. -- asilvering (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you read closely, the sources [49], [50], [51] give in-depth coverage of Hu's role at IIG, how he provided loans for Central and South American SMEs, using fish and food as collateral. It discusses how Hu advised a Venezuela fund and how Hu made money from a management fee. This is coverage of his work outside the crime. Kwwis (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Completely agree with what others have said above. Also, this was not a single event. Article is backed by reliable sources, meriting WP:GNG and describes David Hu's decade of work experience outside of his prison sentence. Moreover, according to WP:NOTBLP1E, WP:BIO1E, the criteria is that the individual's role in the event is not substantial or well-documented. However, this is the complete opposite here, where David Hu's role in the Ponzi scheme is substantial and backed by reliable sources as mentioned above. Zipperlock (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep According to policy WP:RSP, Washington Post and Bloomberg are reliable sources. Moreover, article cites the US Department of Justice. --Caishikou (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input please, hint: there are no grounds for a speedy keep
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Onel is right on the money here, all coverage is in relation to this one event, and the presence of background information in that coverage doesn't change that. WP:BLP1E doesn't require that somebody have done literally nothing beyond the one event to be non-notable. What it does require is for the subject to have received no coverage beyond that one event. Seeing as how by at least one voters' own admission that background can only be found if you "read carefully" in coverage relating to the Ponzi scheme, that additional coverage isn't there. -fuzzy510 (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- But that misses the point that David Hu played a large role in the event, so by WP:NOTBLP1E the article should be kept. Zipperlock (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to IIG Capital - BLP1E applies here. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because yes, BLP1E does indeed apply: BLP1E states that we offer subjects the courtesy of not writing articles about them if they are only known for that event, if they wouldn't otherwise be known, and if the event was minor, their role was minor, or the event was poorly documented. In this case, the event was reasonably substantial, and his role was major, so by BLP1E, the article should be kept. If we delete because people are known for one negative event only, we wouldn't have an article on Elizabeth Holmes either. Elemimele (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Elemimele and others. First WP:NOTBLP1E requires the subject's role to be minor, but here David Hu played a significant role in the event. Second, article sources satisfy WP:GNG. Third, Bloomberg, Washington Post are WP:RSP, and article further cites US government DOJ and SEC. Gan Zuolin (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:NOTBLP1E is an essay. WP:BLP1E only says that if those 3 conditions are not met, "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". It does NOT say that if all 3 ARE met than the person is notable. And regardless, all 3 conditions are met. 1. Absent the event, no significant coverage of the person is available; 2. The scarcity of non-event coverage shows that the person was low-profile; and 3. the event was not significant.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The third condition says "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented" but here the individual's role is substantial and well documented by reliable sources, so the third condition fails. Thus, by WP:BLP1E the article should be kept. Gan Zuolin (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Can't Stop Won't Stop (album). ✗plicit 12:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I Ask For[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NSONG. Source eval:

Apple Music :: 1. "Everything I Ask For - Single by The Maine". Apple Music. Archived from the original on November 21, 2009. Retrieved April 8, 2023.
Promo for festival "The Maine all under one sad summer sky. Tickets are on sale now, grab yours HERE!" :: 2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Amanda Milovich (February 29, 2020). "Spin It Back Saturday: The Maine – Everything I Ask For". Retrieved March 11, 2023.
Chart history :: 3. ^ Jump up to:a b "The Maine Chart History (Bubbling Under Hot 100)". Billboard. Retrieved September 30, 2021.
Stats database page :: 4. ^ "Key and BPM of Everything I Ask For by The Maine". Musicstax.com. January 1, 2008. Retrieved February 1, 2022.
Oral history, not IS RS with SIGCOV :: 5. ^ Maggie Dickman (July 8, 2018). "The Maine reflect on Can't Stop Won't Stop 10 years later—an oral history". Alternative Press. Retrieved January 10, 2023.
MySpace :: 6. ^ Jump up to:a b "The Maine News & Updates". MySpace. Archived from the original on July 3, 2008. Retrieved July 4, 2022.
Amazon :: 7. ^ Jump up to:a b "Into Your Arms/Everything I Ask For 7" (White Vinyl)". Amazon. Retrieved April 24, 2022.
MTV new music video promo :: 8. ^ Debbie Newman (November 19, 2008). "New Video: The Maine Everything I Ask For". MTV. Retrieved March 3, 2022.
MTV new music video promo :: 9. ^ Kremkau, Bryan (November 18, 2008). "The Maine's Music Video For "Everything I Ask For" Premiering On MTV Tomorrow". Read Junk. Retrieved March 3, 2022.
Billboard chart :: 10. ^ "The Maine Chart History (Hot Videoclip Tracks)". Billboard. Archived from the original on October 23, 2012. Retrieved July 4, 2022.[dead link]

BEFORE showed promos, database records, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection to redirect to The Maine (band) or Can't Stop Won't Stop (album) if there is consensus. // Timothy :: talk 02:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Can't Stop Won't Stop (album) per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Can't Stop Won't Stop (album).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pulse 2. Courcelles (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1278 and 1530 AM West Yorkshire[edit]

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

Fails GNG. The article is about "1278 and 1530 AM West Yorkshire was a temporary name used for the AM sister station of The Pulse of West Yorkshire", the "The Pulse of West Yorkshire" redirects to "Pulse 1". This might be a redirect to Pulse 1 or 2 if there is a consensus. Temporary names of ORGs do not merit stand alone articles and are not encyclopedic content. There is no sourced mateial in the article that could be merged. // Timothy :: talk 02:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Merge with Pulse 2. Rillington (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to Merge if sources can be found for the content to be merged; unsourced content cannot be merged into other articles without violating WP:V which is policy. Right now the only source in the article is an air check, merged material needs to be properly sourced and pass V. Without sources for the merge, it should just be be redirected. // Timothy :: talk 11:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- - I found a source about the 1997 changeover from the closing GYG to GWR's service, though no provisional brand is ever mentioned. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd still suggest that you add the source so that, if the article is merged rather than redirected, the source can be included in the Pulse 2 article. Rillington (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rillington I added the source to Pulse 2 itself. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pulse 2. Like Sammi Brie, I can't find any reference/source for this specific name having been used, which means a merge wouldn't be viable. Fails WP:GNG per nom. Flip Format (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A local radio station on air as a one-month temporary fill-in station would, at best, struggle to get anywhere near passing the Wikipedia notability test no matter how many independent references were located. Given that User:Sammi Brie and Flip Format have both reported that they have been unable to find any independent references, I am happy to change my vote from Merge to Redirect. Rillington (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pulse 2, its successor. Fails WP:BCAST in its own right. Some of the stuff can be included in the target article. SBKSPP (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2027 East Timorese presidential election[edit]

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

This is a WP:TOOSOON case since only two citations are given, one being Wikipedia, and both only covering the 2022 election. When I did a WP:BEFORE check on Google, only two resources came up, both being results for the 2022 election. Similar things came up when I did a WP:BEFORE check on news articles, with everything being for the 2022 election (and one article being about East Timor joining ASEAN). There probably won't be enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article until a year or so before the election, perhaps in 2026 or something. interstate five 01:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Asia. interstate five 01:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It can be recreated when the election is actually anywhere close to happening. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This habit of creating new election articles years out really needs to stop for all nations and all parties. Nate • (chatter) 15:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL establishes critieria for expected future events, this fails that criteria on the basis that there is no sourcing. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bizarrap discography. Courcelles (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eladio Carrión: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 40[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NSONG. Sources in article are stats, promo. BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. There is no material that can be properly sourced (all promo) and merged. No objection if a consensus forms for a redirect after delete. // Timothy :: talk 01:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. DreamRimmer (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bizarrap discography#2021. There is no reason to delete the history. ✗plicit 01:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bizarrap discography#2021.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bendancer[edit]

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

Appears PROMO, has no coverage in RS, no appearances in any major productions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of being notable. Coverage is typical of a performer who is at the beginning of their career. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 08:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely WP:PROMO, WP:UPE and created by a WP:SOCK and fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. Could be G5'able as well. Wesoree (Talk) 13:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[:02-1] Frashëri, Kristo (2002). Gjergj Kastrioti Skënderbeu: jeta dhe vepra (1405-1468) (in Albanian). Botimet Toena. pp. 160–161. ISBN 978-99927-1-627-4.

[:12-2] Ciriacono, Salvatore (October 15, 2014). "Scanderbeg tra storia e storiografia" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 October 2020. «Indignato per non aver potuto correre in aiuto di Hunyadi, in una guerra che forse poteva mutare il destino dell'Albania e dell'intera penisola balcanica, Scanderbeg corse per la Serbia saccheggiandola e mettendola a ferro e fuoco, per punire il krajl infedele. Se ne tornò poi a Croia, amareggiato, verso la fine di novembre»

[:22-3] Setton, Kenneth Meyer (1976). The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571: The fifteenth century. American Philosophical Society. p. 100. ISBN 978-0-87169-127-9. Scanderbeg intended to go "peronalmente" with an army to assist Hunyadi, but was prevented from doing so by Branković, whose lands he ravaged as punishment for the Serbian desertion of the Christian cause.

[FOOTNOTESedlar1994393-4] Sedlar 1994, p. 393.

[FOOTNOTEBabinger199240-5] Babinger 1992, p. 40.

[6] Vaughan, Dorothy Margaret (1 June 1954). Europe and the Turk: a pattern of alliances, 1350–1700. AMS Press. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-404-56332-5. Archived from the original on 9 April 2023. Retrieved 12 September 2012.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]