Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 15 April 17 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎ . Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amar y temer[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2012.

PROD removed with "de-prod. clearly notably, check spanish wiki", which I had already previously done...and, while that article is more detailed than this English one, there are ZERO references there as well. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:29, 2 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) 23:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The only hit in Google Book Search was a trivial mention in ISBN 9781479893881. But there are more web results, including [1] (El Universal (Cartagena)) and [2] (some random blog). The eswiki article also said it won one es:Premios India Catalina award and was nominated for others. My Spanish isn't good enough to work on this (and I have found no non-trivial mentions in English-language media), but I think there is sufficient coverage for an article. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom, Fails GNG and [[WP:RPRGM]. Sources found are promo, primary, database, etc, nothing from IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  00:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Additional SIGCOV: [3]. Going to add the sources available so far. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Donaldd23 and @TimothyBlue to take a look at my work. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following improvements made. – Meena • 11:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on sources:
  • [4], [5] (barely), [6] These appear to be IS RS SIGCOV. They address the subject (the show) directly and indepth (it provides significant, not trivial, information about the subject).
  • [7] this looks like an unreviewed opinion post from a reader, if I'm wrong let me know; Fails RS.
  • [8], article is about another subject. The only thing I can find here is the sentence, "On the other hand, Amar y temer -with Diana Hoyos- will remain on the air, at midnight" while the article discusses schedule changes. Fails SIGCOV.
  • [9], name mentioned in list. Fails SIGCOV.
3/6, but three IS RS with SIGCOV will pass GNG.  // Timothy :: talk  15:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep switched from delete based on article improvement.  // Timothy :: talk  15:37, 20 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 Veľké Lovce. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Velký Lót[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. AugustusAudax (talk) 23:57, 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 . Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Pillai[edit]

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

Rationale: Coverage is inherited from the company Thinkpot, and mostly passing mentions. 180.150.37.213 (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)}}[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can't see the previously deleted article instance to compare, but much of the activity described in the present article and coverage provided as references relates to tasks which the subject's firm Thinkpot has been commissioned to perform for other firms, from which notability can not be inherited. The afaqs item appears to be launch publicity for a recent Axis Bank ad campaign. The references do not support the awards listed; even if these were to the individual, they do not appear inherently notable. A "Manoj Pillai" made a film entitled "The Whistleblower" in 2021 [10]; however as this is unmentioned in coverage of the subject of this article, it is probably the cinematographer mentioned in the first AfD (and even if it was this person, I wouldn't see that as sufficient for WP:FILMMAKER notability). This person is clearly going about his business, but I am not seeing the in depth coverage needed to demonstrate attained biographical notability (or WP:NCORP notability if the article was to be repurposed for the Thinkpot company) and overturn the 2020 AfD consensus. AllyD (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AllyD. BLP without the sourcing to show notability.  // Timothy :: talk  15:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AllyD. I would also invite XMANClass to indicate any WP:COI that they might have. Jupitus Smart 15:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jupitus, i don't have any COI. XMANClass (talk) 09:32, 22 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 23:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commandery of fezzan[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject (the administration) directly and indepth. Even if minimal sourcing could be found this is a CFORK with no legitimate rationale for spliting content. No objection if there is a consensus for a redirect to Karamanli dynasty, but there is no properly sourced material to merge.

Drafting was rejected. // Timothy :: talk  23:17, 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 . ✗plicit 23:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Cuomo[edit]

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

A lecturer like so many others, it is unclear what his encyclopedic relevance is: he does not seem to have any publications of particular relevance (see, for example, Jstor and Google Scholar), nor has he distinguished himself for important academic work. Within en.wiki, he is cited only by the articles Max Wertheimer and Lev Vygotsky (inserted without specific reason in the "see also" section) and Cuomo (disambiguation page). The article, already deleted elsewhere (here is the deletion procedure on it.wiki), was created twelve years ago by a user who registered only to create this page and with promotional/autopromotional intentions. --Melquíades (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A small number of citations in Scholar, and that's it. No indication of passing WP:PROF. The article was created by an SPA user in 2011. Nsk92 (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Perhaps, this article should be completely rewritten portraying the subject as non-academic lecturer on learning topics. This way there won't be any confusion. His absense in any decent journals makes me think the article won't survive here under such angle. Rodgers V (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO or WP:PROF. Subject is simply not notable. (BTW I removed a paragraph of pure advertising). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify May need more work. Not notable. The person who loves reading (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nicola Cuomo's assessment falls far short. It may be that the entry in wiki.it has no longer been updated. But the entry in wiki.en should not be deleted. I'll check with the staff in Bologna. Until his death, Cuomo was professor at the University of Bologna. The idea of rewriting (@Rodgers V) is interesting and valuable 2A02:1210:3A0D:E300:8CFB:2A43:6E79:4DDF (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He does not satisfy any of the notability criteria stated in WP:PROF. He has no notable publications in any international scientific journals (his most notable contribution is undoubtedly this 130-page monograph for ETS, a publishing house whose authors do not exactly have all that much notability prominence) - even almost no publications in non-Italian languages -, on Google Scholar there are very few on his contributions and almost not at all cited. Honestly, I don't see why it should be on Wikipedia (other than the fact that a monoscope user specifically signed up in 2011 to write this page). He is (was) an academic like thousands and thousands of others, who, unlike Nicola Cuomo, do not have a Wikipedia page simply because their research doesn't have "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Having been a professor at the University of Bologna does not seem to me to be a reason to be on Wikipedia. Melquíades (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cannot see how he satisfies notability criteria. Equine-man (talk) 14:42, 23 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 . Unanimous submissions for keep on GNG grounds (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rijad Smajić[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I found [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and [19], among many many more German and Bosnian sources. Young clear topic of interest with ongoing career regarded in German and Bosnia and Herzegovina football. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of knowledge, and this article is a "yes" to Wikipedia:The one question. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 20:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources User:Das osmnezz brings forward, which are not surprising seeing he is on the squad of a Bundesliga team. --Mvqr (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are numerous reliable German sources to conclude WP:GNG is there. The only future for this article that I see is extending, not deletion. Rodgers V (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly passes GNG. BEFORE not met.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources User:Das osmnezz. Shows enough notability. Equine-man (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable Lightburst (talk) 18:21, 23 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 Fireman Sam. ✗plicit 23:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Jones (writer)[edit]

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

After dealing with an edit war over removing a negative sentence that, to be fair, had a source… I’m left looking at a two line BLP. Sources aren’t being found to expand this… so why does it need to continue to exist? Courcelles (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For sure Delete. It obviously doesn't meet the notability guidelines for a living person and as stated in the original AfD, not enough sources are being found. e (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fireman Sam - as Jones's most known significant work CiphriusKane (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete I can't even find the books this guy has written via a search engine, much less secondary sources. It's been tagged as not being shown to be notable for 8 years, no one will miss this. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In retrospect, the edit war was indeed overblown and it looks like that I (among others) missed the big picture... And to make things worse, of those 50 words in the article, I'm not even sure that the book referenced was written by the article's subject, or an entirely different David Jones. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 21:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overall fails to meet reference independent of the subject.NP83 (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fireman Sam. Subject lacks sources for a stand alone article, but will fit into this 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 per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).
  • Redirect to Fireman Sam. As above, only high quality sources should be used. Equine-man (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect WP:CHEAP Lightburst (talk) 18:22, 23 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 2002 Superbike World Championship. ✗plicit 23:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Silverstone Superbike World Championship round[edit]

2002 Silverstone Superbike World Championship round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A single event in a series. Fails GNG and EVENTCRIT. Souces are all primary, stats, nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject (this event) directly and indepth. Unneeded CFORK of 2002 Superbike World Championship season. No objection to a redirect, but Wikipedia is not a repository of sports stats, unless content has some context from IS RS content should not be merged.

I think all five articles currently in Category:2002 Superbike World Championship season are similar enough with this article to merit consideration of a group deletion  // Timothy :: talk  20:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the group nom:
2002 Kyalami Superbike World Championship round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2002 Monza Superbike World Championship round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2002 Sugo Superbike World Championship round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2002 Valencia Superbike World Championship round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Consensus appears to be that WP:GEOLAND applies to this article's subject, which it meets. Aoidh (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akçakent District[edit]

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

TL;DR: fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources; WP:GEOLAND doesn't apply as this is an administrative unit only.

Brief background: until 2022, all Turkish districts were handled in the same article as the town that was the seat of the district. Since then, despite my raising objections that Turkish districts in general don't meet the notability criteria separately, there has been a massive drive towards creating separate district articles. As such, I'm nominating this article for deletion as a "proof of concept" before we can discuss about undoing this recent drive with a mass deletion/mass redirect.

Looking specifically at this article: there is absolutely no significant coverage of the district as a distinct entity from the town centre here in reliable, independent sources. Sure, there are fleeting mentions of the district in sources, but Turkish sources and encyclopaedias don't intellectually distinguish between district centres and districts at large, making it very difficult - and possibly original research - to create separate articles about the two. This is simply not a good way of presenting this information, and given the general scarcity of sources, would likely leave one of the articles as a permastub. As such, this article simply fails WP:GNG and there is no reason that the information about the district-at-large cannot be given in the context of the town centre; WP:GEOLAND isn't applicable as this article isn't about a populated place per se, it's merely about an administrative unit.

There isn't any content to be merged here, simply because the different content here (the list of the villages, the district population) was just moved from the district article as a WP:CFORK. If the discussion is closed as delete, it would be as simple as reverting the last two changes on the parent article of Akçakent. I would also disagree that "Akçakent District" is even a bona fide plausible search term, so would think that a redirect isn't warranted. GGT (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the district contains one municipality and 20 villages that are directly subordinated to the district, not part of the municipality. And indeed they have different populations: Akçakent municipality has 755 inhabitants, Akçakent district 3,519. Markussep Talk 18:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK then keep as it appears to pass WP:GEOLAND/WP:PLACEOUTCOMES and as noted its standard to have separate articles on districts unless there's a clear consenes against that for Turkey. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the twenty or so years of our coverage on Turkey, we did not have separate articles; but over a few months these articles were mass created without seeking consensus (the few conversations that were had were because I raised concerns and mass creation went on regardless). The main issue is that it will be impossible to have viable articles for the district and the town centre separately for most places in Turkey, because this is just not how Turkish sources conceptualise things. I still don’t see how that concern has been addressed for this district, there just isn’t any coverage for the district as a separate entity in sources. My concern is that a mass creation of such articles will invariably result in a huge quantity of low-quality permastubs. GGT (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the consensus then I'd go along with that as I can see you're Turkish and if that is done on both tr and de and most other Wikipedias then we should probably follow suit, only it and nl (see d:Q13428856) have separate articles. That said as I mentioned while it is normal for low level municipalities that have the same name as a settlement to have 1 combined article it is normal for districts that cover other settlements or rural land outside the namesake settlement/municipality to have separate articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think practices of other Wikipedias should be considered, they may have different policies and guidelines. What's important IMO, and I think that's also what Aintabli means, is that separating district and municipality articles makes it much clearer what the information given in the articles (e.g. population, area, notable places, administration) refers to. Clearly, for this type of districts (and there are 454 of them), there is a big difference between the district and its capital. The situation is different for the districts of metropolitan provinces, where the districts coincide with the (second level) municipalities. Markussep Talk 08:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this article into Akçakent. Turkish Wikipedia currently has an article on the district titled "Akçakent" (that includes a bit about the town). German Wikipedia also covers the district and town in one article. Neither have "District" in the page title and both articles are brief. I think it sensible for English Wikipedia to follow suit and develop one comprehensive article rather than two stubs. WP:GEOLAND should be applied with common sense. I agree with almost all the nominator's well thought through reasoning. However, deleting and merely reverting to the revision of the Akçakent page would omit some of the detail on the "District" page. I didn't see this article's list of villages appearing in the Akçakent article when checking its history. Rupples (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Other language Wikipedias are not relevant. Turkish Wikipedia doesn't even distinguish provinces and the towns/cities that are the administrative seats of the provinces, which is simply nuts. Not distinguishing settlements and administrative divisions is a great problem for a future addition of content. Aintabli (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But the district and villages are distinguished and listed in a merged article. I don't see how it's a great problem for a future addition of content? Please explain. Rupples (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't we talking about the district centers/towns? They are also merged in Turkish Wikipedia. Essentially, not distinguishing an administrative division and a settlement complicates everything from geography, demographics, culture, etc. If we were to add content regarding these, we would always need to be careful about what we're describing, the administrative division or the settlement. Aintabli (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Get your point. I've taken a look at some other towns where the district info. has been removed. With some there is a bit more narrative left than just the population, elevation etc, unlike this one. I'm unsure whether there should be 'automatic' district articles or whether it should be decided on a case-by-case basis. For consistency, maybe the former is preferable. I'm changing my opinion from merge to neutral for this specific case. Rupples (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rupples: See WP:UKDISTRICTS for England for example. Most districts like Maldon/Maldon District have separate articles even though the municipality (parish) is combined with the settlement unless the boundaries are similar or smaller than the settlement like Hastings and Reading, Berkshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. New articles for districts and recognized villages and towns of Turkey were being created for quite some time. This AfD isn't just about one page but hundreds of other pages. A deletion/merge will revert days of work. Moreover, district centers and districts are distinct both officially and conceptually. Censuses do distinguish these entities. Aintabli (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable as per WP:GEOLAND. Klausness (talk) 13:00, 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 . I would like to remind people reviewing this close that this is a policy-based discussion, not a vote. I gave zero weight to arguments that were some form of ITSUSEFUL, LIKEIT, what about foo / per other AfD, or INTERESTING. I also gave nearly zero weight to arguments based on NOTCHANGELOG shouldn't exist. If editors would like to change policy, they should open a RfC at WT:NOT.

After that, the discussion was over how to apply NOTCHANGELOG. In general, I didn't find arguments that because this article could be written in prose that it should be exempt from policy to be overly compelling since the argument encompasses every change log. The common sense part of policy does not exist as a get out of jail free card.

Based on this, I find a consensus to delete based on NOTCHANGELOG-based arguments. Several people pointed out that the article is a context-free list of monthly changes, just as policy speaks to. Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Chrome version history[edit]

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

Goes against WP:NOT speficially the section WP:NOTCHANGELOG 1keyhole (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Comment as it goes againstWP:NOT as it is clearly a change log listing various updates and changes brought in by them.
1keyhole (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons I expressed under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefox version history (2nd nomination). (TL;DR: Wikipedia has a long history of allowing articles chronicling the evolution of significant software programs, and Chrome's absolutely enormous market dominance and long history make the topic absolutely notable.) I would particularly note here that this Chrome version article is better formatted than the Firefox one and contains less redundant text. Certainly some cleanup and more explanatory text would be desirable, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted. – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 01:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's clearly an encyclopedic topic for software such as Firefox. Should be cutdown some but we can use Common sense as mentioned at WP:NOTCHANGELOG (same rationale as on the on-going AfDs: Firefox, Chrome, and iOS). Skynxnex (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While the article needs to be rewritten into prose so that the information isn't just a dry series of changelog-esque tables and is closer to WP:NOTCHANGELOG than what's happening at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefox version history (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IOS version history (2nd nomination), the article still contains history of the changes of the software which can be rewritten into prose that would goes far beyond a simple changelog. Describing and detailing the version history of a given piece of software is not in itself a WP:NOTCHANGELOG issue and so this is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem that can be fixed via editing rather than deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per the same reason I expressed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefox 2. There is no reason to delete this article. Dawnbails (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Aoidh. ResonantDistortion 21:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Aoidh's rationale "the article also contains history of the changes of the software written in prose" Lightburst (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, no evidence independent coverage. There is also no substantial prose whatsoever in the article (claims above to the contrary are obviously false), NOTCHANGELONG applies to anything not sourced to third-party sources, prose or not. Avilich (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Issues raised can be addressed with editing, not deletion. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTCHANGELOG is policy and cannot by overridden by local consensus. This article fails this policy because it is only a detailed change log almost only sourced to primary sources. Sandstein 20:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Load of junk. Wikipedia is not a manual that keeps release notes. More so, these notes can generated online anywhere you happen to be. They don't need to sit here and serve no purpose beyond their original release note mechanism. What is the point having the junk on here. No historical or encyclopedic value. Fails WP:NOT, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 21:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Or at least reduce this into only notable releases. Whilst this is useful, WP:GNG and WP:NOTCHANGELOG apply. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 08:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    may i suggest for your to change to WP:TNT or WP:ARS as if you feel reduction would be okay as removing and not restarting would be counterproductive to such a point? Popeter45 (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no encyclopedic value. Artem.G (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep same as stated in Firefox, WP:NOTCHANGELOG is wrong to be applied to such a topic when updates are the encyclopedic value of the article Popeter45 (talk) 18:33, 25 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 Amaravati#Education. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational institutions in Amaravati[edit]

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

Being “in or near” Amaravati isn’t the basis for a valid list. Two of these institutions are in Vijayawada, one is in Mangalagiri, and of the three actually in Amaravati, two don’t event exist yet, leaving just one. In any case this is an unnecessary fork of List of institutions of higher education in Andhra Pradesh. Mccapra (talk) 18:30, 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 . Aoidh (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican and Eastern Europe (1846–1958)[edit]

Vatican and Eastern Europe (1846–1958) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a random and unnecessary article. The chosen time frame appears to have been arbitrarily chosen. And the article leaves out most Eastern European countries. Super Ψ Dro 18:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Religion, and Europe. Super Ψ Dro 18:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Lithuania, Poland, and Russia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think this article is questionable at best, especially considering its original creator had a tendency to create narrowly focussed articles or articles on synthesized topics. However, it needs to be considered in its original context, which was a superior if still incomplete article before abridgment (see this diff). ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Delete: Timeline here is inexplicably subjective and fundamentally flawed in regard to CEE modern history and there is no existing historiographical framework that would warrant this grouping, let along a separate article. It encompasses multiple different states (several of which are imprecisely labeled) over a long period of time with uneven coverage, confusing section titles (like what is "protest or silence"?) and makes absolutely no contribution to furthering knowledge on any of these subjects. Even if we take these papacies as methodological framework, the contents of each section make clear the coverage is just not there. When we get to Pope Pius XII there is basically no content at all. I also don't see any valid historical argument for why the Russian Empire (described as "Russia") would be included in the lead with ending year of 1918, so in the midst of the civil war, rather than 1922, which is when the Soviet Union was founded. Moreover, I don't understand why the Soviet Union would be excluded, even though Soviet satellite states (again, with wrong names and no sufficient explanation of major geopolitical shifts during these periods). I could keep going, but I don't think it would be a productive use of anyone's time here. Ppt91talk 19:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And to clarify, I take the original context of the article into consideration; the lead still made no explanation for the grouping and ending with 1958 is odd, since the thaw begins in 1956 and Khrushchev dies in 1964, so the papacy of John XXIII should also be included if we are going down the "Eastern Europe" path. Again, no historiographical benefit. These relationships should be examined separately which has already been accomplished in relevant existing articles. Ppt91talk 20:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it hard to believe we need to speedily delete anything that's been around for 15 years... Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens Fair point, may have gotten slightly overzealous, but I could not believe it has been there for 15 years. Will strike "speedy" to keep "delete" only. Ppt91talk 01:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Maybe the solution is to just remove the arbitrary (1846–1958) from the article's name? The general topic is likely notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a point to it. Eastern Europe is a region mixed with Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Atheists, Muslims and historically a big proportion of Jews. The Popes must have had very different approaches for different regions in every given period of time. Also, so far the article is constructed in a way that every pope is generally given a few paragraphs of info. Doing that with every pope is pretty ambitious. And if we don't do it, we will remain with an incomplete article which doesn't help the notion that it should be kept. Or your proposal could come together with a new scope for the article. But all of this seems like a lot of work for an article that is not really necessary anyway. Super Ψ Dro 13:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Had more time to run through every aspect of this article (sourcing, edit history, etc.) and it has always been an amalgamation of SYNTH and other OR. The concept, if covered by and sourced to scholarly volumes, could actually become an article. However, the mostly arbitrary period of focus says to me that we should just blow it up. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The period relates to the pontificates of a series of popes, but events are likely to have been much less driven by popes than by secular political changes in the countries involved. There appear to be a series of articles about Pope X and Country Y, to which this is trying to provide an overview, but it does not do this well. There may be a place for an overview article, but tieing it to papal reigns does not work. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 23 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) 03:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Khartoum (2023)[edit]

Battle of Khartoum (2023) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have still 2023 Sudanese coup d'état attempt Panam2014 (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. As this conflict shows no sign of ending, as well as the fact that this will eventually differ heavily in the future from the 2023 Sudan conflict, primarily because there will be more battling in other cities. The reason there is similar information on this one to the aforementioned Sudanese conflict is because there isn't too much information as of now because this conflict has only just begun. Vlaseesabas (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is multiple battles in multiple cities TheVoltigeur (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple battles, but this is a very prominent one it also has been labeled a battle by several news sources:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/dozens-killed-hundreds-injured-as-battle-for-control-of-sudan-rages-on
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/sustained-firing-heard-sudanese-capital-amid-tensions-98603891
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-04-16/dozens-killed-as-army-and-rivals-battle-for-control-of-sudan
And the list goes, I think we should keep this article. NYMan6 (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge as most of the focus at least for now is about Khartoum and there is not that much about other regions (at least covered notably). The main article about the events is well structured and to populate this article you will need to copy and paste from the main article FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Africa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coup attempt/clashes have spread across multiple cities, and Khartoum is the most notable along with sufficient information in Khartoum alone to designate its own article. Jebiguess (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly not a separate event from 2023 Sudan clashes. The sources are all covering that as one event. 25stargeneral (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 2023 Sudanese conflict has spread not only in Khartoum, this is the worst battle of the conflict so far, with civilian deaths, military captures of stratregic buildings and has been shown prominetly on the media as a battle, not only to forget this is the capital of the country. NYMan6 (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heres another source:
https://www.voanews.com/a/fierce-fighting-between-sudan-s-army-and-paramilitary-in-coup-attempt/7051941.html NYMan6 (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article is focused on the conflict as a whole, not something called a “Battle of Khartoum”. So it seems to support my point. 25stargeneral (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The clashes are not only in Khartoum they are a nationwide thing, this is the part where most of the news coverage is being located at only, the name "Battle of Khartoum" has been used by various sources, This has enough information and prominence to designate it's own article as a whole NYMan6 (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've not presented any sources showing that the conflict has substantially spread outside of Khartoum. The Kip (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there have been many sources including:
Omdurman source: [https://apnews.com/article/sudan-fighting-hospitals-db1a36308e64f46e7d64de75b4a19598] "Six out of the twenty hospitals in Khartoum and it's neighboring city, Omdurman have shutdown".
Omdurman source #2 [https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/dozens-killed-army-rivals-battle-control-sudan-98614697] "Fighting was also reported in Khartoum, Omdurman and large attacks at the Khartoum International Airport"
Omdurman and Khartoum North source #3 [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/what-sparked-the-violent-conflict-to-control-the-future-of-sudan] On the photo title it states the following: "Smoke ries near Halfaya Bridge between Omdurman and Khartoum North.
NYMan6 (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Khartoum is the epicenter of the clashes and the capital of the country, so most news outlets cover Khartoum and Sudan as one thing, but articles about other cities and Khartoum alone exist. See Nyala [21],Khartoum Intl Airport [22], this article with tons of information on Khartoum itself [23], and satellite images of Khartoum [24]. There are more than enough reliable sources to uphold the page without a content fork. Jebiguess (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The conflict has reached day 5 and is still ongoing with no signs of stopping, as clashes in Darfur and Southern Sudan as well as locations north of Khartoum become more well-known there is clearly going to be enough information for both this article and the conflict itself to remain separate Sailingsmooth5 (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because sources aren't covering other events taking place in numerous other cities doesn't invalidate the events in the capital as separate 31.205.122.127 (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As previously mentioned in this discussion, the clashes have spread across the entire country. Having a specific page for the most important and largest battle of the current clashes allows more information to be specifically given on this one sector of the front, while the general article on the clashes allows for a wider overview of it. HarmfulHurdle91 (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we actually have enough information for two articles on this subject? Because it seems to me the answer is no, since all I’m seeing is a WP:Content fork. Just because we want more information doesn’t mean we have it. 25stargeneral (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2023 Sudan clashes. There are zero mentions of a 2023 "Battle of Khartoum" in the media. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't find any reason to merge, the media has referred to the situation in Khartoum as a battle several times, and some of the sources I listed above have proof of such NYMan6 (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable engagement part of the ongoing crisis, and many media refers to the situation in Khartoum as a battle as NYMan6 had mentioned. Yxuibs (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The clashes taking place specifically in the Khartoum area are probably notable enough to merit a separate article. If not, that will become clear later (see WP:LAGGING).
Clashes are taking place all over the country. Covering the ones in the capital, Omdurman, etc. would most definitely not be a content fork.
Draftifying is not only quite unnecessary, but would make the article much less visible, attracting far fewer editors. Absolutely not!
Furthermore, I’m not sure why the nominator acted so swiftly, without allowing the real-world situation to unfold and become more notable. There’s no deadline. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree @RadioactiveBoulevardier NYMan6 (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. If this situation develops further into a war, then this would be a part of it and we move draft into mainspace. If it fizzles out soon, then we incorporate this into the 2023 Sudan clashes Bremps! 05:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need drafts, this article will most likely be forgotten, this fits the category of a battle and has sufficent sources and enough evidence from the media to give it it's name and it's title as a "battle" NYMan6 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the battle and the clashes are effectively one and the same for now. You've created an article that already exists. The Kip (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The clashes article is about the country as a whole, this article is for only Khartoum not the full on 2023 Sudan clashes, if were going to make this a productive and good article, we'd have to think about it, most of the article, (2023 Sudan clashes), is full of statements and texts mainly about Khartoum for literally three whole paragraphs, I understand that this is a serious part of it and you probably will find a lot of news coverage and recent coverage about it, but you guys should start reporting in things like Darfur, Nyala and Merowe instead of Khartoum, And put the parts about Khartoum into a section about the battle but smaller and with a link with (See also) at the top of the text for people to enter the main article. Make the article more reliable and full of a lot more information of other occupations/captures across the country.
Do you understand @The Kip
NYMan6 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest I don’t, considering what you’ve written is one singular run-on sentence.
The simple fact is everything contained within the battle article is already within the clashes article. It’s redundant, and especially considering the state of the two, with all due respect please don’t lecture myself or others on what we should do. The Kip (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not lecturing just supporting my claim on this, as you can see their are still lot's of information you should put instead of the tons of sentences you have put in the article, and just give the people reading the article an understanding of the battle.
NYMan6 (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to add any new information to the page because I've been busy cleaning up the quite honestly incomprehensible grammatical errors your additions have contained. Even your response above is one run-on, comma-heavy sentence that barely makes sense.
I understand your enthusiasm, I really do, but please, just stop for a little bit. Review WP:MOS, run your edits through Grammarly, do something so that your content additions are coherent and myself and others don't have to undertake near-constant cleanup work. The Kip (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going take a break for a while today, I know and understand your claim and your ongoing feedback and am trying my best to improve this article. I have noticed my grammar towards this article has gradually improved to the point where we no longer need the large/excessive clean-ups we saw the past week, primarily those are now used for when I upload new updates to the article. I'll tell you I am trying my best to make this a great article.
Thank you,
NYMan6 (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a battle of the ongoing clashes so, keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasoliveira653 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify For the moment, there's not much of an indication that the clashes have spread heavily outside of Khartoum, which makes this article redundant. However, wouldn't recommend deletion until the situation as a whole plays itself out. The Kip (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying to @The Kip
    Draftitfying it would hide it from editors, this article would be forgotten later on, more information is being added constently, I wouldn't put it into a draft, this is a very prominent event currently.
    NYMan6 (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftifying is necessary when the entire article is redundant. There's little to no coverage of this battle separate from the clashes as a whole, and the article itself is effectively "airport, palace, military base," also documented in the main article, on continuous repeat. Considering the current state of the grammar and content, this article arguably should've never been published in the first place. The Kip (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, when lots of content is being added by non-native editors (especially IP editors), there are bound to be some grammar errors. If you see something, do something and fix it.
    Secondly, the daily timeline structure in the main article is an ad hoc layout that will be restructured if the clashes last long enough.
    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is it's not IP editors but a registered one, and it's not minor errors but a near-incoherent structure to the article as a whole that I've repeatedly had to clean up. I encourage you to take a look at the talk page as well as earlier revisions; I'm not going to continuously play janitor here. The Kip (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - All the arguments supporting drafting the article looks to be more valid than the people arguing to keep it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, this is what's heavily frustrating me. I'm afraid an admin will see all the keep votes and assume it should be kept, when in reality most keep votes are voting that way simply because "well, it's notable!" rather than legitimately assessing whether the article should even exist - which it honestly shouldn't, as almost everything within it is already covered in 2023 Sudanese clashes. The Kip (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Considering the escalation of this conflict. I'm inclined to say keep now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The crisis is escalating into a civil war.
TankDude2000 (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALL, and your argument moreso applies to the main 2023 Sudanese clashes article, not this "battle." The Kip (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft Weakish Keep - The grammar along with the layout is horrid, and we should maybe wait to see what notability this may have in the greater picture. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 18:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC) Modified because I think due to the situation I've seen, it may be notable enough, but I still stand that the article needs serious copyediting. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 21:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC) Struck wholly because I have a new opinion. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 23:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of grammar has been revised @L'Mainerque especially last night, the citations have been revised, the grammar looks way more better now. It's notability has grown strong as of right now.
    NYMan6 (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As the person who revised effectively all of the many, many grammar issues you created, I’m going to once again state this article still should not have even seen the light of day until being reviewed as a draft. The Kip (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This appears to be notable enough to be retained as a separate article, without merging into 2023 Sudanese clashes. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 19:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Had this battle been fought and won within 24 hours then yeah it could have been merged. Right now the main article is like 75KB, so WP:SIZE is a factor here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another great claim here, @Knowledgekid87 this article is growing in size constantly, KB might grow rapidly. NYMan6 (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The importance of this battle is yet to be discovered; It is still ongoing; in history, it might later on be very important, and deleting it too early would be not very good. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The importance of this battle is yet to be discovered - Which is exactly why it may not be notable, see WP:CRYSTALBALL. Whether or not it is imporant in the future is irrelevant to its notability now. Also, keep in mind that deletion is not a death sentence for an article, as most articles can be recreated anyway (well, excluding these ones). ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable battle. Mentioned in multiple news outlets محرر البوق (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely it's a battle--Noel baran (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. This article was probably created too early, but now I would say there are enough references to keep it separate from the main article. For the future, I would say if this conflict wraps up relatively quickly, then a merge might be appropriate. Yeoutie (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a real battle occurring in a real conflict. If this article contains almost the same content that 2023 Sudan clashes contains, the events related to Khartoum should be summarized in the main article, with a link to Battle of Khartoum (2023) in case readers want to read a more detailed version of the events in Khartoum. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've observed the progress of this conflict and this discussion, and I have come to the decision to keep this article. As this conflict is now countrywide and has been going on for a bit, I think a separate article for the Battle in Khartoum is reasonable. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 23:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets notability for event, WP:GNG. It is distinct enough from the article that is merge target to be kept seperate. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a battle of the ongoing clashes. There are still many foreign civilians involved. --Peter39c (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This battle will almost certainly be remembered as a distinct installment in the conflict. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 13:00, 23 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) 07:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Redden[edit]

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

While DigitalIceAge, who just undid my BLAR, makes a good point that there are at least a handful of articles covering this subject, I couldn't find anything that wasn't completely tying him back to his sole prominent role in Deliverance, hence why I went for the redirect initially. But since it's been disputed, of course I'm now bringing it here. My argument remains the same; one notable role as an actor should fall under WP:SINGLEEVENT, and I don't think the coverage does enough to pass that standard. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - ONEEVENT is intended to be invoked for things like lottery winners who stumble into brief bursts of media coverage through no volition of their own. In this case we have an actor, the subject of multiple instances of coverage in reputable sources. The fact that he is known for only one role is neither here nor there; this is not a ONEEVENT situation but rather a (weak) GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like there is sufficient coverage. For WP:BLP1E to apply, all three criteria need to be met, and this one would fail on the basis of him not being a low profile individual. Also, he's notable for more than one thing (two performances) which is what WP:NACTOR would need. CT55555(talk) 01:12, 22 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) 20:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hani Al-Dobaini[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG. In my Arabic searches I found Al-Jazirah, which mentions him once, Ar Riyadiyah, which is a one-sentence transfer announcement, and Alyaum, which has two quotes from him at the bottom. None of this coverage addresses him directly and in depth. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP, fails GNG, BIO. There are no IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Source in article is a database record. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV, game news, database, promo. 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 per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  09:06, 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 keep‎ . ✗plicit 14:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashiyana[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy notability requirements. Nothing found in BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2017.

Previous AfD ended in no consensus with "nationally broadcast on a major network" being a deciding factor. But, does this alone make it notable? Let's determine once and for all so the notability tag can be removed, or the article deleted. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:NTVNATL. Found 2 reliable Urdu sources (see WP:PKRS) that show it was a popular TV play back then: Daily Ausaf, mentions it as a "PTV's blockbuster drama" and Duniya News, lists it among the notable dramas of the senior actor Qavi Khan. Therefore, I think there must be offline coverage for the serial, but as noted in the previous AfD, internet was almost non-existent in Pakistan in 1997 and the Pakistani print media (both English and Urdu) has not been digitized like the English. Insight 3 (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Insight 3. Muneebll (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 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 . I do see a merge comment and a possible redirect for a couple of the nominated articles but the general consensus seems to be to delete, since the merge comment also mentions that there's almost no information in any of the articles. Aoidh (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gabonia[edit]

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

This article for a monotypic taxon describes a genus that has not been validly published by the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Its primary source is the Mourembou et al. 2015 paper claiming discovery of the novel species Gabonia massiliensis, but it has not been accepted for publication in the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology in the following seven years. This suggests that the genus is insufficiently described to warrant the approval of these taxa. Its other source of the UniProt database and Wikidata Taxonbar link to the NCBI Taxonomy Database are trival references. In the former, a single heat shock protein is listed based on the genome described in the Mourembou et al. 2015 paper without any evidence that the gene is distinct from other bacteria of the taxonomic family Porphyromonadaceae. In the latter, the page only restates details from the Mourembou et al. 2015 paper's genome annotation while noting "Disclaimer: The NCBI taxonomy database is not an authoritative source for nomenclature or classification - please consult the relevant scientific literature for the most reliable information" because this site scrapes all papers claiming new taxa, regardless of whether the bacteria's unique properties were sufficiently described BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 14:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am bundling Gabonia massiliensis, Lascolabacillus, Lascolabacillus massiliensis, and Sanguibacteroides with this nomination. I recently overhauled the Porphyromonadaceae article on this taxonomic family and found these five articles on taxa not validly published under the ICNP. All of them were created by User:Daniel-Brown, who appears to have been banned/blocked in 2016 due to sock-puppeting. Their deletion would have a minimal impact, as their page views are low, and they only wikilink between each other. I reached out to members of the WikiProject Biology Discord channel, and I found agreement that while there is not an official taxonomy-specific notability policy, the relevant authority of ICNP publication should take precedence. None of these articles are longer than a single sentence, and I was unable to find sources that provide additional information beyond this article that describes Sanguibacteroides justesenii as elevated in untreated patients with major depressive disorder.[1] However, this source's minor reference to genetic similarity to the originally described S. justesenii sample does not address the issue of whether this taxon was properly named, leading me to recommend deletion for all five articles until their valid publication under the ICNP to write articles with sufficient info. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 15:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Are not valid, and do not meet GNG or SIGCOV. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Fontana, Andrea; Manchia, Mirko; Panebianco, Concetta; Paribello, Pasquale; Arzedi, Carlo; Cossu, Eleonora; Garzilli, Mario; Montis, Maria Antonietta; Mura, Andrea; Pisanu, Claudia; Congiu, Donatella; Copetti, Massimiliano; Pinna, Federica; Carpiniello, Bernardo; Squassina, Alessio (27 August 2020). "Exploring the Role of Gut Microbiota in Major Depressive Disorder and in Treatment Resistance to Antidepressants". Biomedicines. 8 (9): 311. doi:10.3390/biomedicines8090311. ISSN 2227-9059. PMC 7554953. PMID 32867257.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Way too short with almost no information; merge into Porphyromonadaceae. Spaceeditor123 (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Gabonia, Gabonia massiliensis and Sanguibacteroides. Maybe redirect Lascolabacillus to Fermentimonas and Lascolabacillus massiliensis to Fermentimonas caenicola, per [25] (the authors who originally published Lascolabacillus found "100% 16S rRNA sequence identity" between the type strain of validly published Fermentimonas and the strain designated as the type of Lascolabacillus). I say "maybe redirect", because LPSN doesn't list Lascolabacillus as a synonym of Fermentimonas, and the authors of Lascolabacillus have already demonstrated that they're not concerned with taxonomic rigor; I'd be fine with deletion as well. Plantdrew (talk) 21:54, 20 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) 20:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ihor Nekhayev[edit]

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

Article about former footballer who made a single appearance in the Ukrainian Premier League but comprehensively fails WP:GNG. The only online coverage is entries in statistical databases and match reports (most with the U19 squad) such as this. There is nothing that is in-depth coverage at all. Jogurney (talk) 16:47, 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 redirect‎ to Monster Jam. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Jam World Finals[edit]

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

No evidence that the subject of this WP:INDISCRIMINATE database article is independently notable from Monster Jam from a WP:PAGEDECIDE perspective. All the sources currently given in this article currently are either non-independent or social media posts. A WP:BEFORE search only seems to turn up more press releases from the promoter, WP:ROUTINE coverage amounting to "how to get tickets for the upcoming Monster Jam event in [locale]", or coverage primarily relating to Monster Jam as an organisation and not these specific events (also children's books with titles like I'm a Monster Truck, but those aren't really relevant). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Motorsport, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, and Tennessee. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Echoing the nomination. 5225C (talk • contributions) 15:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the Championship event for the Monster Jam season. This event is considered the same as a Super Bowl for the NFL. Those events all have separate entries for each event. The results for each World Finals is compiled here. This page should be saved. Edits are made only with official info and nothing is rumored or opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsterjam1fan (talk • contribs) 11:44, 16 April, 2023 (UTC)
    • That is a false analogy. Super Bowl games have articles because they individually meet the notability requirements. Having a WP article about an event requires that there exist independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the event. Please cite such coverage it you are aware of any. - Donald Albury 16:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unworkable LISTCRUFT that violates NOTDATA, on top of nominator's already specified rationale. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 20:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Monster Jam - viable WP:ATD which saves the tables in history for those who want to take it to Fandom or if sources become available later. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom.  // Timothy :: talk  12:43, 23 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 14:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamín Benítez[edit]

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

Non-notable. The acting career is also quite lackluster. Tryvix1509Let me know if I made a mistake 14:31, 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 . ✗plicit 14:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baffour Kyei[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence of coverage addressing him directly and in depth for WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. I can find Transfermarkt, a blank profile page. Please do not confuse this person with Baffour Kyei Sebe, who plays in Guinea and has a different DOB. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:14, 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 . ✗plicit 14:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Komade[edit]

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

Another poorly sourced BLP from 2008. Database sources confirm that he played at semi-pro level in Germany but little else is known about him. Best sources I can find are Ghanaweb, a trivial mention, Modern Ghana, a brief quote from him with no independent analysis, and Eurosport, which is just a database listing that wrongly lists him as Dutch. No evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:03, 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 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 14:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Prime Show[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. Nothing in article or BEFORE showed IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Lots of promo, database listings.  // Timothy :: talk  13:46, 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 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 14:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cinta setelah Cinta[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. Nothing in article or BEFORE showed IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Lots of promo, database listings.  // Timothy :: talk  13:45, 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 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 14:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dewi (2009 TV series)[edit]

Dewi (2009 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. Nothing in article or BEFORE showed IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Lots of promo, database listings.  // Timothy :: talk  13:44, 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 soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jaaga Study[edit]

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

Non notable, it appears to potentially be long standing advertisement Very Average Editor (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:44, 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 . ✗plicit 14:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gideon[edit]

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

Orphaned, unsourced BLP and I'm not seeing any evidence of notability; has been in this unacceptable state for 15 years now. Best thing I can find is Footballeur Lifestyle, which simply lists his name and DOB. WP:SPORTBASIC requires significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, which we do not seem to have. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:39, 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 keep. The discussion has demonstrated that there are enough non-trivial sources in relevant media so that the notability guidelines are met. Tone 17:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Face Sounds Familiar (Slovenian TV series)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2016 DonaldD23 talk to me 19:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The show meets GNG: it was widely reported on in Slovenia and is discussed in-depth in reliable secondary sources.[26][27][28][29] --TadejM my talk 00:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - there are dozens of sources to be found, which points to NO prior BEFORE was done. Please do read WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources in the article and BEFORE show all promo, interviews, etc. Nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV.
As for the sources above are reflective of the types of sources in the article:
  • [30]: Redirecting to home search results page. [31]: promo. [32]: Promo. [33]: promo.
Lots of promo, but nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  05:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[34] is a list of in-depth articles and does not redirect to home page.
As to the rest, please elaborate why you call in-depth articles 'promo'. I would not assess them as promo. These are explanatory articles published in reliable sources.
Do you even understand the content? --TadejM my talk 07:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand content and notability, you snide little comments are not needed, see WP:CIVIL. I changed "home" to "search" above. As for the content on the search results page, its 47 pages of generic search results most of which have nothing to do with the subject, none of which has SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  08:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was a reasonable question. If anything here violates WP:CIVIL, it's your words: 'you snide little comments'. Given that you claim most of the results have nothing to do with the show, I seriously doubt that you understand the content (or you are simply reporting misinformation to be civil). Please also note that the page does not 'redirect to search results page' but rather is a list of search results. --TadejM my talk 08:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was commenting on your comment, not your person; your comment was about an editor. You need to stop directing personal comments at other editors. It is a clear Wikipedia civility guide to comment on content, not contributors. I suggest you read WP:ADMINCOND.  // Timothy :: talk  08:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A kettle calling the pot black. It was a reasonable question in the context of whether you can properly assess the notability as you do not have Slovene listed on your page as one of the languages that you understand. Please also note that it was you who used the word you when saying 'you snide little comments'. I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH yourself. --TadejM my talk 08:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this was the most watched show in Slovenia for many seasons.[For example, in 2016: "The most-watched show of the spring reigned supreme for 12 Sundays and yesterday produced a spectacular finale, which achieved a remarkable 18.9% rating and 62% share on POP TV ( Source: AGB Nielsen Media research, 18-54 year olds, share of total live TV viewers, 29.5.2016)."][35] --TadejM my talk 08:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is even a diploma thesis analysing the show. --TadejM my talk 08:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A diploma thesis is not IS RS, see WP:RS, "theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence"
  • Popularity is not a substitute for N. See WP:N, IS RS sources with SIGCOV are required, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below."
 // Timothy :: talk  08:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and these two sources have been provided subsequently to further support the argument that the subject meets the notability criterion. The required in-depth articles have already been provided above. --TadejM my talk 08:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment type "Znan obraz ima svoj glas" to any Slovenian newspaper and see what you get. For example [36] and the first one I found was [37]. Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- coming into this late, it sort of seems like we're arguing in circles here, but I think given the sheer volume of sources, trying to argue that it's just "routine" coverage seems a little disingenuous. If something is getting "routine" coverage at this volume, that basically suggests its notable, logically, for me, and the volume of things pretty clearly indicates NEXIST. I think for some others, the issue seems to be that there are not specific URLs that can be pointed to that are more in-depth. @Pelmeen10 or @TadejM, if there are specific articles that you think would provide the best sourcing, as opposed to showing the volume of the coverage, that might assuage some other's concerns - and then they could be added as in-line citations to the article. While I can try to Google Translate things to get the jist of them, it can be quite difficult to do that at volume. matt91486 (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't speak Slovenian either. The Slovenian Wiki mostly uses 24ur.com as sources and they have done articles for all six seasons. 1083 results with the search term is quite a lot. Hopefully TadejM as a native speaker can help here. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already provided the requested in-depth articles above. --TadejM my talk 17:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source evaluation:
For all the talk above its worth noting that the above editors don't even bother adding their citations to the article and it remains unreferences.
Here is the source eval of the refs the Keeps didn't bother to add:
Clearly promo stories https://www.delo.si/tag/znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas/
More promo https://www.zurnal24.si/kljucne-besede/znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas-76565/articles
Still more promo https://www.koroskenovice.si/oznaka/znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas/
Nostalgia promo https://vecer.com/film-in-tv/limonada-kaj-za-vraga-so-naredili-s-sovom-znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas-10274328
Promo recap of an episode https://www.had.si/blog/2016/05/30/tilen-artac-zmagovalec-oddaje-znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas/
A diploma thesis. A throw everything and the kitchen sink style spam ref http://dk.fdv.uni-lj.si/dela/vuckovic-jelena.PDF
Promo articles, interviews, episode recaps, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV https://www.times.si/iskanje/?q=Znan%20obraz%20ima%20svoj%20glas
Promo recap of an episode https://www.metropolitan.si/scena/glasba/znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas/
Much of the above Keep comments are based on the show being popular, and using promo resources to try and show notability. WP:N states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity" Fame may result in notability, but in this case it has not. Promo refs and popularity do not equal notability.  // Timothy :: talk  01:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to remember that simply labeling something as a "promo story" doesn't make it so. A quick review of the news articles cited above reveals a range of coverage that is critical, informative, and often quite insightful.

For instance, the set of articles from Delo.si (https://www.delo.si/tag/znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas/) offers a series of interviews and reports that give readers a behind-the-scenes look at the show's personalities and performances. The first article is an interview with a personality from the show, the second article presents another personality from the show, and the third article includes a report on what was going on in the show.

Zurnal24.si (https://www.zurnal24.si/kljucne-besede/znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas-76565/articles) features a range of articles that tackle the show's controversies head-on:

  • The first article is a critical report on the behavior of the show's jury, clearly not a promotional piece.
  • The second and third articles provide a report on two performances, while the fourth article covers a change in the show and critical commentaries of its audience, again clearly not a promo.
  • The fifth article discusses why the former leader left, highlighting that it may be too low an honorary, and is as such also clearly not a promotional piece.

Finally, Večer.com (https://vecer.com/film-in-tv/limonada-kaj-za-vraga-so-naredili-s-sovom-znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas-10274328) offers a critical take on the show's recent changes, including the departure of its former leader and the impact it has had on the show's overall tone and style.

Taken together, these in-depth articles published in reliable sources present a comprehensive and complex portrayal of the show. The articles avoid simple promotional language and instead offer insightful analysis and commentary. it is clear from the breadth and depth of coverage that the show satisfies the notability criteria of Wikipedia. --TadejM my talk 13:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I have now added citations to the article's lead section, including an article in Primorske novice that was not mentioned earlier. --TadejM my talk 13:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • NEXIST, for the record, does not require sources to be added to the article, merely identified, Timothy, so "that the above editors don't even bother adding their citations to the article" is not relevant for the AfD. matt91486 (talk) 10:41, 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 redirect‎ to Scottish Labour Students. ✗plicit 14:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh Labour Students[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable. PatGallacher (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is some dispute about whether student clubs are notable, but the consensus appears to be that generally they are not. See this discussion where it was decided to delete Glasgow University Labour Club, a club of similar importance.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glasgow University Labour Club PatGallacher (talk) 13:33, 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Ngaham[edit]

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

Lack of coverage for WP:SPORTBASIC. The one citation provided is a trivial mention. In my own searches, I found nothing better than a YouTube video and a passing mention in Essex Alliance League, which covers the 11th to 16th tiers of English football... Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cameroon. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO, BEFORE showed stats, name mentions, nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Only source in article is 404, so this is essentially an unsourced BLP. 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 per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  03:56, 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EvoWorld.io[edit]

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

Article fails GNG. No sources in article, BEFORE showed only promo. Game had a name change and I checked under the previous name and didn't find anything except promo. Draft:EvoWorld.io already exists but also lacks sources and submission was declined on 22 March 2023. CSD doesn't apply to cross name space dups.

Based on the similarity between this article now [38] and the declined draft, its obvioius this is a recreation of a declined AfC submission.

Creator has created a cross namespace redirect from the draft to mainspace. [39]  // Timothy :: talk  13:30, 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Petr Dezort[edit]

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

Fails GNG, SIGCOV and BASIC. No sources providing coverage can be found online. Timothytyy (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete his only two titles in tennis were not even in the minor leagues... they were in the minor-minor league men's Futures events. That's not enough to cut it per Tennis Guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click) - He has two Challenger titles in doubles though. Jevansen (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I missed those on the ITF page. Thanks. I know Tennis Project Guidelines are supposed to treat doubles the same as singles, but these days that's pretty iffy. It seems like the amount of minor league and minor-minor league finals he played were pretty minimal, and you do need some notable sourcing or accomplishments regardless. Guideline edges are inherently grey and blurry and we need to be flexible. I would say this one falls short, but I won't be distraught if others feel it should remain. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no secondary sources providing SIGCOV it is not notable regardless of whether it passes NTENNIS or not. Timothytyy (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can only find coverage written by him or by people closely associated, relating to the tennis academy that he runs. This Czech search yielded nothing decent. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find anything that's counted as a significant coverage either about Dezort, which is unsurprising given his career results. Fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:14, 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 . A redirect can then be created if desired. Aoidh (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits Radio UK[edit]

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

I don't think this article is required. The "Greatest Hits Radio UK" station originates no programming and (as the article states) simply relays another station's programming. Suggest a redirect to Greatest Hits Radio, the network being relayed. Flip Format (talk) 12:42, 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 redirect‎ to Greatest Hits Radio. ✗plicit 14:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits Radio London[edit]

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

I'm not sure this individual FM transmitter for Greatest Hits Radio is independently notable or needs its own article beyond the article for the network it transmits. It does not originate its own programming and just relays/translates the network, and most of its history is covered by the article for Absolute Radio, the network it previously transmitted. Suggest a redirect to Greatest Hits Radio. Flip Format (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete - there are lots of pages with information about local GHR stations in the British regions - hard to see that any of these really contain information that couldn't/shouldn't be merged into a single page without loss of content. It certainly seems to me that the local stations (which very largely broadcast the same programming) are not notable. JMWt (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I think there's a lot of confusion generally around these articles. Some of the stations which are now GHR are notable in their own right, but mostly under previous brands. For instance, Greatest Hits Radio South Wales is not a notable station, but in its incarnation as Swansea Sound it was notable as the first commercial radio station in Wales. It's a poor article, but could easily be well improved and stand as a historical article about Swansea Sound. My personal preference would be for articles like this London one (where it's simply a relay of the network) to redirect to GHR's main article, and for articles about stations subsumed into GHR to remain at their old names and be published in the past tense. Flip Format (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The frequency in question has never been used to carry a London station as when it was Virgin Radio back in the day, it was a relay of the national Virgin Radio with a short weekday local programme. I agree that when these 'stations' are merely a full relay of a national network the articles about said 'stations' do not pass the notability threshold and should be redirected to GHR's main article so that if any local programming was ever to be introduced, the text of these articles can be resurrected. Rillington (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The original and primary editor of this article nominated it for deletion under CSD G7. [40] ZsinjTalk 18:33, 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 Keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)‎ Bruxton (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 IIHF World U18 Championship Division I[edit]

2023 IIHF World U18 Championship Division I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested draft without a single in-depth reference from an independent, reliable, secondary source. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, and so should be draftified, but that is no longer an option. Onel5969 TT me 10:19, 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 nominator withdrawn. A lot of Austrian sources were found so I strike my own statement. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Kary[edit]

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

Fails GNG, SIGCOV and BASIC with no sources at all. Timothytyy (talk) 10:18, 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 Keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)‎ Bruxton (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Drysdale[edit]

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

Fails GNG despite passing SNG (which cannot supersede GNG). Secondary sources cannot be found in the article, and no SIGCOV can be found on the web. Timothytyy (talk) 10:11, 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 Keep. references have been added to demonstrate notability WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)‎ Bruxton (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mayotte[edit]

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

Although this article passes NTENNIS, it completely fails GNG (which cannot be superseded by SNG) as it has no citations at all. A search on the web shows that there are no secondary sources about him, so there are no spaces for improvement. Timothytyy (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it looks like it has citations to me. He was a notable player in his day. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI the sources were added later. Timothytyy (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that these sources were added shows your claim "there are no secondary sources about him" to be incorrect.--Wolbo (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wolbo I couldn't access all the newly-added citations. All of them were local newspapers. So yeah, I agree, my claim "there are no secondary sources about him" is incorrect after all, just because I couldn't find them online. Timothytyy (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then perhaps what you should be doing is adding a template that we need more sources rather than frivolous deletion requests. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable player who won three doubles titles on the highest tour level and is sufficiently sourced.--Wolbo (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Berkshire Eagle's cited article is a very good source (clip [43]), The State's less so as it consists of little secondary coverage and mostly relies on what Mayotte's saying/quotes instead. Hartford Courant's one is more of a Chris Mayotte vs Jeff Aarts match recap. I'm struggling to find something more in Newspapers beyond passing mentions, routine announcements or match recaps and listings. However, it's hard to put down someone who played over 170 matches total in ATP Tour, was in top 90 in singles and won 3 doubles titles, that's an overwhelming pass of WP:NTENNIS. If there was not a single significant coverage I'd lean on delete, but collectively I think it edges out a keep from me. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:40, 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 soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vagharshak Grigoryan[edit]

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

Does not meet notability standards. The only source that speaks about the subject is a short biographical entry on the website linked to on the page. No additional information found by searches in Russian and Armenian. Revolution Saga (talk) 08:15, 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 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bake Off Celebridades (season 3)[edit]

Bake Off Celebridades (season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The first reference is nice and in-depth, but the other two are simple mentions. Was redirected in order to attempt to get better sourcing, but was reverted without improvement. Since it currently does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:GNG, and per recent ANI discussions, the only alternative is AfD. Onel5969 TT me 00:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 08:06, 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 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amended to hard delete per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 June 18. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Rosales[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG --FMSky (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of minor mentions here and there but no WP:SIGCOV. Definitely not a notable musician. Carpimaps (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cannot find any significance of the subject as no coverage can be found online. Also the article contains no secondary sources as it is mostly written by the subject itself. Timothytyy (talk) 12:53, 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 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redaksi[edit]

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

Non-notable TV programme. Sources don't meet WP:GNG, and a search finds nothing better. Previously draftified, but author insists on publishing, so here we are. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:51, 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 keep‎ . The consensus of participants in this discussion is to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Collier[edit]

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

Lacks notability.


I do not believe that Ajax's mayoralty is significant enough to automatically award its holder sufficient notability, nor that Collier has otherwise garnered sufficient notability. SecretName101 (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. SecretName101 (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DreamRimmer (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has a lot of articles covering his work as mayor including sustained controversies and actions taken during COVID.Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 10:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ajax is a large enough city (over 100K) to qualify its mayor as notable. Lots of independent reliable sources referenced in the article. And even if that's not enough to deem notability, his controversies have made national news; the sources in this article are not just local. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Earl Andrew Population alone does not make a city of that size politically notable enough to afford their mayor instant notability by virtue of their office. SecretName101 (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, judge the article by its sources, of which there are plenty, are reliable sources, significant, and many in national scope.-- Earl Andrew - talk 17:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliability of sources does not transfer notability. reliable sources publish stories every day that cover subjects that don’t meet notability standards. You have to parse the substance of WHAT the stories/coverage assert about the subject and whether that distinguishes them as having notability. I am pretty unconvinced that the stories cited in this article do that. SecretName101 (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't think such mayor's are automatically notable - but he was getting national mentions two decades ago when he was elected to council. More significantly is the recent national coverage related to his opposition to Doug Ford's misuse of Minister's Zoning Orders. I'm surprised this was nominated given the nationally-covered controversy over the Duffins Creek wetland. Nfitz (talk) 23:00, 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 Keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)‎ Bruxton (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Woods (Tempe)[edit]

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

Lack of notability.

The office of mayor of Tempe is not notable or influential enough to give its officeholder automatic notability.

The office just isn't particularly noteworthy. One piece of evidence of that is that Ballotpedia doesn't even appear to give Tempe mayoral elections or the office itself their own dedicated articles.

Tempe is a tertiary population center within its metro area. Mayors of Tempe do not tend to carry widespread political influence or over their metro area, unlike mayors of similarly-populous communities that are the primary anchor of metro areas. This should be evidenced by the fact that other mayors of Tempe largely lack articles and many mayors of similar suburban cities also lack articles.

If he does something of particular note, he would then warrant an article. But as far as I can tell, he hasn't. SecretName101 (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough to deem him notable. Woods has successfully promoted several multi-billion dollar projects in Tempe, he has been appointed to both state and national housing roles, and he is the 2nd African-American mayor in the state of Arizona in a not insignificant city (population 180,000 and 140th largest in the US). He is one of 4 mayors of Tempe that have a wikipage. Patapsco913 (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Patapsco913 The projects are important. But is his role in them ("promoting") principal enough that by virtue his involvement affords him notability? SecretName101 (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the independently notable things this article lists are just stuff that happened while he was mayor. The article does not specify him as playing any significant role, for instance, in the streetcar (a project which was set in motion and underway before his mayoralty). It just says it happened to be completed during his term.
Several things don't draw a strong connection with him. For instance, 911 program bit doesn't say he had anything to do with creating it, just that he touted it as a positive.
Things like the wastewater surveillance bit are a good starting point though. SecretName101 (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable local politician. Andre🚐 04:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable person, plenty of sources, search of newspapers have many hits. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 10:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hits for a search term are not sufficient to establish notability SecretName101 (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – the key notability factor for local politicians is "significant press coverage" (WP:NPOL). He meets the requirement. And as things heat up in Arizona politics the press coverage will increase. – S. Rich (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NPOL. Being mayor of Tempe and receiving significant press coverage pass the bar. Marquardtika (talk) 19:03, 19 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 . Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O.D. (musician)[edit]

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

Blp without references for non notable musician Very Average Editor (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As far as I can tell (and I could be mistaken), there's basically no biographical information available in decent sources; I only seem to find passing mentions of his work in articles on Velcra. We can't build articles on nothing. /Julle (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm unable to locate any decent sourcing. It's possible that I'm missing something because the name is quite difficult to search for, but hypothetical sources don't count. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or possibly Redirect to Velcra but the name "O.D." is so generic it may not work as a search term. For the musician, it appears that he either wants to be anonymous by never revealing his birth name, or mistakenly gave himself a hideously unsearchable stage name, and either way there is not enough independent info to build an article here. Via targeted searches I can find nothing about him outside of the band. I also question the notability of his bandmate Jessi Frey but that is a separate discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:19, 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 . Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Schreiber[edit]

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

Non-notable college and minor-league pitcher who last played professionally in 2009. Only incoming link is from surname. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:25, 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 no consensus‎ . Randykitty (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welspun Corp[edit]

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

Company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - insufficient non-routine coverage meeting the WP:CORPDEPTH thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 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 redirect‎ to Welspun Group. Any content worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welspun Investments and Commercials[edit]

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

Company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP, lacks independent coverage meeting the WP:CORPDEPTH thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 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 redirect to Peach PRC. Clear consensus against a standalone at this point; and if someone is interested in creating a draftspace copy, the history remains for them to do so. However, this should not be recreated without substantially better sourcing than is currently available. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manic Dream Pixie[edit]

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

Another contested redirect. Please see the article's talk page where the editor who contested the redirect admits there is not enough in-depth sourcing to warrant an article. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 01:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What?! I did not say there wasn't enough sourcing - I said that everything in the article was sourced. This is genuinely ridiculous. Also another source was just added to the article - there is no reason why the article isn't considered notable, when NME is a severely notable and reputable news source in the U.K. when it comes to media and entertainment. Additionally, it wasn't contested - you reinstated the redirect without having a formal discussion about it first, which is again not how you handle these things. I severely diagree with the mere creation of this AfD. And another thing: the EP literally releases in 3 weeks. There will be more media coverage of the EP then. Therefore I say keep, because the artist in question is notable enough, and the EP will more than likely garner a lot of media attention when it fully releases. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 01:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Probably TOOSOON, but it's all press releases at this point, nothing in RS. I'm even wondering if the singer is notable, her article appears to be largely social media posts used for sourcing. I'll have a look at her article soon enough, will probably get an AfD deletion discussion notice as well. Oaktree b (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    She's got coverage in Rolling Stone and Billboard, weakly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    the singer is notable - she has millions of listeners across apple music and spotify, and over 2 million on TikTok. Obviously she isn't no Taylor Swift, but she does have a listener base. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 05:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Listeners on streaming sites can be bought, aren't an indication of notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b: is there valid evidence of this though? because i've never ever seen spotify have artifical listener gains. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 01:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, google streaming farms. We don't accept their numbers here as they aren't audited like newspaper circulation numbers are. Oaktree b (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b: She has had a top 40 and gold-certified song in Australia ("Josh"), multiple other chart entries in both Australia and New Zealand, as well as radio play on Triple J (and has featured in the Triple J Hottest 100), as well as received fairly wide coverage in Australian music media. There is no way her article would be deleted after having all of that. Fine, her EP may not warrant an article yet, but she is definitely notable. Ss112 03:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I said. No need to repeat it. Oaktree b (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that isn't what you said at all? You only mentioned Rolling Stone and Billboard, not about any of Peach's media coverage in any Australia journalism or her top 40 / gold certified song. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 14:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, we don't need to discuss it further. I've ~voted below. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak deleteDraftify I feel it's TOOSOON as well. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 04:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and redirect as TOOSOON but promising. As is, the coverage here is close but not quite enough, especially for a prerelease article. Let the article get built up however much it can in draftspace and get judged after its released when hopefully enough coverage is available. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have opted to move the article to draftspace - its the best option instead of having the article be deleted. This isn't routine AfD protocol, but i can already assume that people will vote for draftify or delete. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 05:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify and redirect this article is TOOSOON but I do believe that in a few months it'll be fine. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 06:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's against policy to move articles to draft while still at AfD. I've moved it back. Onel5969 TT me 09:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Evelyn Marie should we take this as a vote from you to draftify as well? And @Oaktree b @XtraJovial would either of you be interested in changing you votes? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - after thinking a bit I think draftification would be more appropriate than outright deletion. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I vote to draftify. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 01:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. No point in moving to draft, just redirect it until/if it gets coverage and/or charts after its release. Ss112 06:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect either until it gets better coverage or is released. "Should be notable" isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 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 . Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Briar Prestidge[edit]

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

Not convinced that there's enough independent coverage to meet WP:NBIO. KH-1 (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a field I have a lot of expertise in but once you sort through all the self publicity and promotional stuff on line she seems to have reasonable substance within her field. The wiki article needs a major overhaul as it is promotional in nature rather than encyclopedic. NealeWellington (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the more I looked the less I found. All the articles seem to be self promotional. There is nothing of substance that I could find at this stage. Maybe it is a case of too soon NealeWellington (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note [53] this page should be of interest to you all as it states
<quote> Want to become notable with a Wikipedia page? Our, team of trusted Wikipedia consultants create pages for our clients. After we have achieved top tier press features for you, we will create, reference, and submit your write up to Wikipedia. With 10 years of experience in writing and editing Wikipedia pages, we have a very credible rating. This will highly increase the chances of your profile being accepted by Wikipedia.</quote>. NealeWellington (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, NealeWellington. I've filed an ANI report. Schwede66 10:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we are allowed to delete. Yes, there's lots of media stuff about her, but everything I looked at was clearly the result of her own publicity activities. If your business is getting people into the limelight, you can do it for yourself too: get yourself interviewed, issue the right press releases to the right people at the right time. We really need evidence that someone chose to write about her without her doing the behind-the-scenes prompting, and that at least some of the information isn't coming more-or-less directly from her. It is nearly impossible to write good articles about publicists because of the nature of what they do. In this case she hasn't helped us (or her case) by producing a vast quantity of PR that will dilute out any "real" independent information. Elemimele (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even without the paid-editing concerns, when you take away the things that do not show notability, such as interviews, churnalism, articles written by the individual, and trivial mentions (such as sources that mention a designer label or Prestidge Group but have only a passing mention of the individual) and there's no sources that would show notability per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. - Aoidh (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No signs of in-depth coverage of Briar Prestidge by independent sources.—Alalch E. 22:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article creator has been involved in very few topics. Article reeks of self promotion. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 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 Withdrawn. SWinxy (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manzoor Elahi[edit]

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

The biographies fail WP:SPORTBASIC. All information I've found about them come from sports databases, which do not confer notability as they are trivial sources with little to no standards for inclusion. Coverage of a game by the BBC and another from a Pakistani news site are both WP:ROUTINE coverage, and a very short bio mentioning the three from The Asian Age is just not enough. There is not widespread coverage of any of them to warrant an entry on Wikipedia. SWinxy (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. SWinxy (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:NCRIC. The subjects played international cricket for Pakistani national team: [54], [55], [56], [57]. Insight 3 (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for Saleem Elahi. Upgrade to keep all per the discussion. This was a ridiculous nomination: he is one of the select group of sixteen players in List of centuries scored on One Day International cricket debut, but if you want to be legalistic about it, the two ESPN articles pass GNG. StAnselm (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Insight 3 @StAnselm those are all sports databases; ESPNs database is also a sports database. Those don't show coverage for notability. Notability is not inherited wrt the list. SWinxy (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was, of course, talking about the ESPN articles. StAnselm (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I glazed over the titles because I assumed they were part of ESPN's sports database. My b. I've read them now, and I'm coming back with concerns. All but three (A, B, C) are more than play-by-plays (routine). The deepest they go is in A, but that's still pretty shallow. SWinxy (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But you have still completely missed the point what I've been saying. My !vote concerned only Saleem Elahi and his Wikipedia article contains links to two ESPN articles (aside from database entries), neither of which you have appeared to have read. StAnselm (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mixed up what I was saying in that comment. But I did read the articles. They are play-by-plays and don't provide in-depth coverage. A, B, and C were other articles I've found on ESPN's cricket site; I should have said that to avoid confusion. SWinxy (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously you haven't if you're saying they are play-by-plays. I'm talking about these two: [58][59] StAnselm (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Plz read WP:NCRIC: Significant coverage is likely to exist for a cricket figure if they ... Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation. You can't expect detailed biographical info about a cricketer whose career was during the pre-internet era (1984 - 1995), as Pakistani sources have not been digitized like the English newspapers. Insight 3 (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What draws my attention in that wording from NCRIC is that it is likely to exist, not that it does. SNGs are useful for clarification and to presume coverage (from WP:SNG), but they do not wholly override GNG, and the presumption they make is only a piece of the notability puzzle. WP:NSPORTS explicitly states that (emphasis not mine) The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. So even though playing at that level presumes notability, there is the need to complete the rest: providing multiple reliable sources demonstrating that. If those are not found for these brothers, then they fail the general notability guideline. SWinxy (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we still need WP:SPORTBASIC even after the WP:NCRIC is satisfied, then there is no point for the later to be there in the guidelines. The role of WP:NCRIC is actually compensatory as it acknowledges the ground reality that sometimes, even notable cricketers may not have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Insight 3 (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, SPORTBASIC is still needed. SWinxy (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for all. What an utterly ridiculous nomination. Playing at both Test and ODI level, and having a substantial domestic career of nearly 400 matches, this guy is likely to have tonnes of sources in Pakistani print material. Plus, I'm sure amongst people's Wisden collections there are further mentions of him. I suggest in future, the nominator pays a visit to WT:CRIC, where we'd all be more than happy to held expand articles. StickyWicket (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noticed there's more than one nomination! Just woken up!!! Adds to the bizarreness, all are of course notable and when nominating articles, please see how many domestic matches they have played (in the hundreds there will be substantial coverage someplace) and if they have played Test/ODI cricket, they have played at the pinnacle of the game, so coverage will almost certainly exist. StickyWicket (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't matter what they've done. I don't care about ODIs. I care about how they meet (or don't meet) the notability guidelines, and I want to see the coverage that supports your keep. SWinxy (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "I care about how they meet (or don't meet) the notability guidelines"... which has already been explained. Good luck getting rid of Test cricketers. StickyWicket (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep All 3 of the subjects nominated have played international cricket for a major nation, and two of those nominated have featured in World Cups. Coverage will almost certainly exists for players like this who played at the times these players played in offline or non-English language sources. Also, all 3 of these should be discussed (if discussed at all) in separate discussions to warrant their own notability, not in bundles because they're bundles. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP All 3 of the cricket players are notable and have played cricket in the international matches and the World Cups. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - as shown by multiple editors - coverage exists if you try to find. A proper WP:BEFORE was not done and this is a clear case of WP:TRAINWRECK. I just added one article to Zahoor Elahi's biography. 2400:ADC7:112F:D000:11CF:73E1:3C02:AD50 (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note The News on Sunday article about all three cricketers, who formed an important cricketing family in Pakistan. StAnselm (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, now there are more sources. That is magnitudes more compelling of an argument under the notability guidelines than noting whatever scores someone got. SWinxy (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep all Not helpful behaviour from the nominator. Without improving the article with sources, their motive was only to delete it without doing any WP:BEFORE. How come one says a player with 60 international appearances along with around 400 domestic matches is non-notable?? Clearly meets WP:GNG per the coverage about the player, at least enough for a player from pre-internet era.RoboCric (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    People keep saying I did not do the optional BEFORE search, but I very much did; I spent two-plus hours combing through all the Google results for all three people. What I came back with was what is in the nomination statement. And again again, I nor GNG cares about whatever statistics a player might have. That is not what NSPORTS is anymore. SWinxy (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case there are some serious competetence issues and you should not be mominating articles for deletion at all. The problem, of course, was that you missed the referencess already included in the article. StAnselm (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawing my nomination now that there has been a demonstration of notability. The keeps had the correct gut feeling. My nomination was done with a good-faith belief that, by the few sources I came across, they did not pass the notability guidelines. Now that there are a plethora of sources to support notability, this discussion may be closed. Thank you StAnslem and the IPs for finding sources to demonstrate notability. My mind has been changed, and I am proved to be incorrect. SWinxy (talk) 18:56, 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 . Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haitian Creole vocabulary[edit]

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

This is just a long a list of words. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Yilku1 (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, seems pretty clear. Tollens (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Haiti. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expect it is possible to write a Wikipedia article about this topic—for example, encyclopedic discussion of the sources of vocabulary—but at the moment it is TNT worthy. (t · c) buidhe 15:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is Wiktionary interested? Elinruby (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Carrite (talk) 23:53, 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 keep‎ . Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phaedra Al-Majid[edit]

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

Subject is BLP1E and an unneeded CFORK serving only to make readers chase links. No objection to a redirect to Qatar 2022 FIFA World Cup bid#Bribery.  // Timothy :: talk  02:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found (which go into her background): [60], [61], [62], [63], and [64], among many more sources. Ironically, the nominator of this article voted to keep another WP:BLP1E AfD, saying that the nominator of deleting that article was "simply cherrypicking pieces from guidelines and ignoring the overall context". Article needs improvement not deletion m. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes GNG per above sources.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the stub article does need to be significantly improved. It's barely a one sentence stub, and it needs to be expanded considerably. CycloneYoris talk! 11:00, 22 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ogre (Tekken)[edit]

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

Ogre is only known for being the toughest boss, but just like Jinpachi Mishima, he also hasn't received significant sources that talk about him. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 00:47, 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 keep‎ . Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's Got Talent (series 16)[edit]

Britain's Got Talent (series 16) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Britain's Got Talent (series 16)

This article, about a television series that may have started within the past 24 hours, has no references, and so should not have been created in article space. It may also be too soon with no results or very few results to report. There is also a draft, Draft: Britain's Got Talent (series 16), by a different editor, which was briefly in article space and was then (correctly) moved into draft space. Either references and substantive content should be added to this article within seven days for a Heymann result, or it should be merged with the existing draft and the merged draft left in draft space until there are substantive results with reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources need to be added as far as judging changes, but it has started airing; it's not getting deleted at this point. Nate • (chatter) 00:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously. One of the biggest shows in the UK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is silly to delete this article when it would just need to be created again within weeks, as every season of the show gets sufficient coverage to cross the threshold of notability. Beyond that, there are already nearly a dozen sources in the article, some high-level, providing reasonable coverage of the subject. BD2412 T 00:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the show and this season pass WP:GNG. The draft issue is another thing, but the article as it is now has several sources now, and yes definitely could still be improved, but I don't feel deletion or drafty is the best course forward with the season already started. WikiVirusC(talk) 19:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep every season has one lmaoMuur (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article could still be improved, but seems fine for now. Absolutely no point in deleting. CycloneYoris talk! 10:55, 22 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_April_16&oldid=1151704574"