Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 01	May 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Pax Imperia. There isn't a consensus to merge, but there's no reason not to redirect. History remains should a merge consensus emerge. Star Mississippi 02:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heliotrope Studios[edit]

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

Declined prod. No significant coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sole cited source only mentioned the subject's predecessor, Changeling Software, once as part of the experience of the reported subject, with no support for the claim of name-changing and product development. Searches of the subject only returned trivia mentions, either as someone's former employer, or an item in some lists. Lacks significant coverage to justify having an article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Connecticut. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, no notability, practically no content, there is nothing here. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient sources to meet the notability guideline for corporations. Checks reveal primarily business listings and other mentions not conducive to substantiating a claim to notability MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Aside from that one source I added last year I found nothing else. Timur9008 (talk) 13:09, May 4, 2023 (UTC)]]
Delete. Does not appear to be notable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pax Imperia as WP:ATD. This game appears to be their notable achievement. ~Kvng (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Sometimes, as with this situation, relying on a single primary source not only violates WP:SIGCOV, but is a borderline violation of WP:COPYVIO. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as an ATD per Kvng; preferable to deletion, and the only notable aspect about them as a company. Sadly couldn't find any good sources. PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found three mentions of the company under Changeling Software on Gbooks ([1][2][3]) but wouldn't pass NCORP. SWinxy (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Palates[edit]

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

Footballer that seems to have spent most of his career in the amateur Cypriot Third Division sourced only to stats sites. Per WP:SPORTBASIC, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. The best that I could find were Kerkida, which mentions him once, Athlitika Press, also mentioning him just once, and Tothemaonline, another trivial mention of him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found no significant coverage of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:41, 2 May 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 Operation Underground Railroad. Courcelles (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Ballard[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:N. Most sources in this article are either primary (articles written on his own websites, bare recordings of him talking in Congress, public database websites), promotional (announcements of public speaking events, advertizements in small blog articles, etc.) or only mention Ballard in a passing manner. The only existing reliable, secondary sources here are actually about Ballard's company (Operation Underground Railroad, O.U.R.), but ALL the other biographical sources that are actually centered around him as a person are exclusively primary and/or promotional. You can even check that the only sentences and sections of this page that are reliably sourced are the ones about his company (O.U.R. specifically, not the others). My WP:BEFORE only returned a few Fox News on-air interviews (which are generally not considered independent, and MIGHT be paid advertizing, but it's hard to be sure).

This article completely fails to demonstrate enough notability for this person to have a standalone article apart from O.U.R.'s already existing one. WP:INHERITORG says that "An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership.", and WP:N says that "articles on persons only notable for being associated with a certain group or event may be merged into the main article on that group or event." I believe that this is the case here, the fact that Ballard often appears in reliable sources as O.U.R.'s spokesperson and founder does not merit him a separate article. Since reliable sources listed here indicate that Ballard's name is highly attached to O.U.R.'s brand, as he is its founder and main spokesman, I believe that this article should be removed and/or redirected to Operation Underground Railroad.

(Also, if this is relevant, this article seems to have been created by two separate WP:SPAs that have WP:COIs with this page, see User talk:Mporenta, User talk:Operationundergroundrailroad and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 161.) 🔥 22spears 🔥 21:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. 🔥 22spears 🔥 21:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Small correction: I mistakingly said that the two accounts above created the article, but actually it was created by User talk:MikiB in 2017. 🔥 22spears 🔥 21:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge:

The case for Keep: Some sources from the article: [4], Washington Post, meets SIGCOV; [5], New Yorker, meets SIGCOV (barely); [6], LDS Living, has interview material, but also substantial non-interview material; [7], Daily Hearld, meets SIGCOV.

When evaluated along with the other sources in the article,[8], [9] speaking before Congress [10] strongly bolsters the case for notability.

There is more but I think this is enough to meet GNG and BLP or a merge.

The case for a Merge is also strong. This subjects notability is completely tied to the org, INHERITORG is a factor to consider, and its a short article in itself and a merge would benefit the target article. Along with INHERITORG, considering this along with the advice regarding an EVENTs and BIOs, guidelines would usually defer to including the BIO content with the event/org rather than a stand alone bio, this is a good point to consider for this situation.

Personally I'd say merge (INHERITORG), but will defer to consensus if they decide this should remain a stand alone article. // Timothy :: talk 13:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merging seems reasonable. A lot of the content covered in his article already has a section and/or paragraph in the O.U.R. article, so doing that would be easy. 🔥 22spears 🔥 23:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article for Operation_Underground_Railroad. He is mentioned in sources about the organization but the emphasis is on the organization itself, with the exception of one article in LDS Living, which is about him. Most of the WP article is about the organization, not about him. If reduced to information about him it would be very thin. No prejudice against creating an article about him if sources are available in the future. Lamona (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are multiple reliable sources focused on the person and not the organization. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redraft by deleting or Merging all material not explicitly relevant to the individual, to O.U.R.'s article. A lot of this may become clearer at the end of the South America saga and the criminal investigation, after which, more is likely to be known about his personal behavior. I can see him being more widely notable by then, but for now he has a kind of celebrity status in the LDS community and is highly regarded by some government officials. --86Sedan 20:14, 8 May 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tenby Schools Penang[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. No significant coverage. Sources 3 and 4 are dead links. LibStar (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I salvaged two dead links and found some more references. I think that notability is firmly established now. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 3 May 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 23:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Caicedo Muñoz[edit]

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

Sole claim to notability appears to be being a runner-up in a tournament that no longer counts towards WP:NBAD. According to BWF, all of her other tournament honours seem to be at junior level and I can see no evidence of any activity since 2016 to indicate that she is due to become notable soon, so draftifying doesn't seem to be a great option. Best sources I could find were Hoy and ENARD, both way short of WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and Colombia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly fails GNG and SNG. Timothytyy (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject meets neither the general notability guideline or the subject notability guideline MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:02, 9 May 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) 02:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dajal cattle[edit]

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

Contested draftification. ~~Nothing that isn't mentioned in Dajal,_Rajanpur#Daajal_(cattle) and no indication it's a notable breed of cattle. A redirect would be fine. Star Mississippi 20:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Pakistan. Star Mississippi 20:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not enough notable to have a standalone article.NP83 (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Does not pass general notability. The article is also in poor condition, but that would be a reason for tagging if it were notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per others. Eagleash (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Added some references there to Dajal,_Rajanpur#Daajal_(cattle) Keep per sources mentioned by Justlettersandnumbers below. Insight 3 (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think. This is surely a notable breed (not that we have any breed notability guidelines). Plenty of hits on Scholar; in-depth coverage in Mason, sixth edition (2016), which says that there were over a million of them in the 1940s;^[1]^: 131 listed in Mason fifth edition (2002) as distinct from the Bhagnari;^[2]^: 29 listed by the FAO in 2007;^[3]^: 87 four mentions (as 'Dajjal') in the bible/torah/quran of cattle breeds, Felius 1995, but Google won't give me even one of the snippets so I can't offer a page number.^[4] It's arguable that this could be covered in the Bhagnari page as a breed that derives from it, but I think an independent article is probably preferable; provided there are suitable redirects/hatnotes, there's not that much difference anyway. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the section Dajal,_Rajanpur#Daajal_(cattle) no longer exists, I've removed it because it contained a copy-paste copyvio from here. The three refs added by Insight 3 were:

<ref>{{cite web |title=Dajal |url=http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/cglrc/ilri/beef/Dajal.htm |website=Knowledge Bank |access-date=26 April 2023}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite web |title=راجن پور پہچان کیا؟؟ |url=https://hamariweb.com/articles/83383 |website=Humari Web |access-date=26 April 2023 |language=ur}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite web |title=Breeds of Livestock |url=https://breeds.okstate.edu/cattle/dajal-cattle.html?Forwarded=afs.okstate.edu/breeds/cattle/dajal |website=breeds.okstate.edu |access-date=26 April 2023}}</ref>

The Dajal, Rajanpur page is once again without a single citation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem @Justlettersandnumbers is that this article has CV issues too. The editor, who was probably the IP you cleaned out, has created lots of messes. You took care of another earlier. They're copying from lots of sources so not clear G12s Star Mississippi 00:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, Star Mississippi – I came to this discussion because I was looking at contribs of this user, whose image uploads to Commons are also problematic. I didn't even look at the article last night, but will now clean it – the initial version seems copyvio-free to me, but please let me know if you notice any problem with it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have just pblocked them from mainspace after cleaning up another mess at Mirkadim (cattle). Whether or not they're notable (I second your question about breed notability), they need eyes. Any idea on an active project that can help. Star Mississippi 14:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Agriculture covers domestic livestock breeds, and has a livestock task force. It's about as active as most other projects – barely if at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Source in article do not meet GNG, sources above are entries in lists, if these have SIGCOV tehn every breed of cow is notable and that is clearly not the case. // Timothy :: talk 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlue, have you actually read Mason (2016), page 131? And yes, every recognised domestic animal breed is regarded as notable, I believe – I've created hundreds of such pages. There are only about 14000 listed in DAD-IS, so this is not major burden on the encyclopaedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment I struck the portion of my nomination which is no longer true thanks to the copyvio editing. Leaving rest as is for discussion to continue with respect to breed notability and also noting User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Cattle,_copyvios for disclosure, although I don't think it's canvassing and happy to have input that might resolve this. Star Mississippi 12:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I've now added a further eight sources – seven as refs and one as further reading – and some content based on them. If anyone's not satisfied that those are sufficient, please ping me and I'll add some more. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of sources provided by Justlettersandnumbers: also, proposed target no longer exists. Noting also one "redirect" !voter is CU blocked, and should be disregarded. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They seem ok, one is from a University, the rest are acceptable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fourteen sources all covered the subject, and the cited information did match up with those in the wiki article. Not much reason to remove the article at this point. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Justlettersandnumbers. Mccapra (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per further discussion. Leaving it open as there are extant redirect votes. Star Mississippi 12:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep with more than a dozen references it’s obvious that this meets general notability. Like species, real breeds are all covered in agricultural science literature and therefore are pretty much notable by default. Only if a breed isn’t officially recognized by breed associations and databases like the UN FAO are there not enough sources. Steven Walling • talk 02:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, due to excellent work by Justlettersandnumbers, et al. Clearly meets WP:SIGCOV based on objective information; opinions without valid reasons carry less weight. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - would have closed as keep but possibly considered bad NAC so instead leaving keep submission based on the fact that the latest consensus appears to be for keep, nominator has withdrawn but left open due to redirect comments, and relevant target no longer exists. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ Valerie Porter, Lawrence Alderson, Stephen J.G. Hall, D. Phillip Sponenberg (2016). Mason's World Encyclopedia of Livestock Breeds and Breeding (sixth edition). Wallingford: CABI. ISBN 9781780647944.
^ Valerie Porter, Ian Lauder Mason (2002). Mason's World Dictionary of Livestock Breeds, Types, and Varieties (fifth edition). Wallingford: CABI. ISBN 085199430X.
^ Barbara Rischkowsky, Dafydd Pilling (editors) (2007). List of breeds documented in the Global Databank for Animal Genetic Resources, annex to The State of the World's Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome: Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. ISBN 9789251057629. Archived 23 June 2020.
^ Marleen Felius (1995). Cattle Breeds: An Encyclopedia. Doetinchem, Netherlands: Misset. ISBN 9789054390176.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:TNT material. ✗plicit 23:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Desert Thunder[edit]

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

Notability, verifiability, egregious POV, does not clearly explain chronology of events from an outside perspective. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iraq, United Kingdom, and United States of America. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kuwait, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Earwig copyvio detector verifies that article is a total copy and paste from the source. — Maile (talk) 14:29, 9 May 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 23:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim Balbukh[edit]

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

Balbukh never played at the top level and shows no sign of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I've reviewed his article on other Wikipedia sites such as Belarus Wikipedia and none of the sources on there provide significant coverage or are not independent of Balbukh (e.g. former employers). The best sources I can find myself are Ranak, Media Polesye and Nashkraj, all of which show trivial coverage only. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found no significant coverage of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:39, 9 May 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 Windows 11 version history. Seems like the best compromise that will satisfy the most participants in this debate. If any specific (sourced) content in this article should be merged into the parent, that can be done by ordinary editing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 11, version 22H2[edit]

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

Merge to Windows 11 version history No reason for a single major Windows update for a single operating system to have its own page.

See Windows 10 version history we can always just use the TOC.

Additionally during the move Awesome Aasim (talk · contribs) appears to have copied an older version of the tables that do not accurately reflect the current state of Windows 11 updates. - nathanielcwm (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - nathanielcwm (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad it was KCCian24 (talk · contribs) who started the page. Also pinging Edgardo Aurellano (talk · contribs) as they've appeared to have made non minor contributions to the page.- nathanielcwm (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. I did not copy and paste, just removed the tables. We cannot just indiscriminately list changelogs unless if each version in of itself is notable. It is very difficult, but not impossible, to establish secondary sources that report on these updates. I have found How to force the Windows 11 2022 Update and get it early on your PC | Windows Central and Windows 11 version 22H2: Everything you need to know about the latest version of Windows | Windows Central and Windows 11 22H2 | PCMag as establishing notability for this article. On the other hand, if we are to log every single change on one page it would result in the page exploding in size (see Wikipedia:Article size and what happened with Windows 10 version history). Notable features can be spun off into their own version articles, if there is nothing notable then we can just give a short summary on the main version page. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Windows 11 Version 22H2 had 2 component updates and a future component update is on the way with reliable sources. Microsoft Accidentally Confirms Big Windows 11 22H2 Moment 3 Update Windows 11 Moment 3 Appears on the Horizon Microsoft May Release Windows 11 Moment 3 to Beta Channel Insiders Soon According to Wikipedia:Notability it is notable enough to have its own page. ŇƗΜŘØỮ Đ€ŁΔỮŘ€ŇŦƗŞ (TALK) 02:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Windows 11 version history#Version 22H2 (2022 Update) for now according to Hayman30's suggestion on a similar AfD prior to this one. The reason that individual articles were created was to reduce the size of the version history article; only currently supported versions (21H2 and 22H2) are kept on the full version history, while unsupported builds are moved to their own articles. A similar point Aasim mentioned above. As a matter of fact, although such action may be a bit controversial in some areas in WP's rules, it is still a brilliant idea (for the time being). Because of these, I would suggest the same rules would apply for the page windows 11 version history. My idea is, for W11, we may split any version to its own page once it reaches EOL for Home and Pro editions @ least.197.238.11.228 (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, we need to remember Wikipedia:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and make sure that any and all of the information that is added is (a) notable and (b) encyclopedic. If it is neither of these things it should not be included. An RfC looking into how to handle version histories may be warranted to make sure we do not get monstrous explosions of non-encyclopedic listings. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But now we have another problem: version history pages now have a comma in their title:

Windows 10 version 1511 → Windows 10, version 1511
Windows 10 version 1607 → Windows 10, version 1607
Windows 10 version 1703 → Windows 10, version 1703
Windows 10 version 1709 → Windows 10, version 1709
Windows 10 version 1803 → Windows 10, version 1803
Windows 10 version 1809 → Windows 10, version 1809
Windows 10 version 1903 → Windows 10, version 1903
Windows 10 version 1909 → Windows 10, version 1909
Windows 10 version 2004 → Windows 10, version 2004
Windows 10 version 20H2 → Windows 10, version 20H2
Windows 10 version 21H1 → Windows 10, version 21H1
Windows 10 version 21H2 → Windows 10, version 21H2
Windows 11 version 21H2 → Windows 11, version 21H2
Windows 10 version 22H2 → Windows 10, version 22H2
Windows 11 version 22H2 → Windows 11, version 22H2

Pinged Meno25 because he was the one who created some of those redirects and, whether or not, if we should keep the comma. BTW, what is the idea of having the comma in those titles like this page?197.238.11.228 (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The commas in the title are probably because that is what is referred to on Microsoft documentation. See Windows 11, version 22H2 known issues and notifications | Microsoft Learn Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 16:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the suggestion by 197.238.11.228 (talk · contribs) to keep them in Windows 11 version history until they're EOL then split once they are as part the previous consensus from previous AfDs for Windows 10 version history articles. - nathanielcwm (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Informing Ronniecoln Loudtiago, Jm.Huang and Xiejunmingsa to join this [heating] debate because they are the ones responsible for adding updates to those pages.197.238.11.228 (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenFolf: please, do not revert my WP:GOODFAITH edits made on windows 10 version history and Windows 10, version 21H1 claiming it "undiscussed". According to talk:windows 10 version history's archives, there have been made several attempts to split the page. Furthermore, those conversations periodically resulted in AfD debates, with the current debate being the forth nomination. Presently, firefox version history is nominated for deletion as well. Even several editors, including me anonymously, ® sick of having such release history pages lengthy in size.197.240.204.1 (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I want to trust your good-faith efforts, those discussions did not reach a consensus. I have no comment in regards to this discussion, but there needs to be a proper split discussion before contentious edits like yours can be made. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenFolf: correction, users did reach consensus but it seems that U don't trust my points. Go through them over again, press CTRL+F and search for "split". U'll realise how much the word was mentioned.

Talk:Windows 10 version history/Archive 1

Talk:Windows 10 version history/Archive 2

Finally, I still do not understand any clue to have my contributions undone.197.240.204.1 (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly consists of long tables that violate WP:NOTCHANGELOG. I counted only six non-primary sources, and this version doesn't appear to be standalone GNG notable (even with the additional sources brought up in this discussion). SWinxy (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect alternatively instead per 197.238.11.228's points above.197.238.65.104 (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree if the information is unencyclopedic it should not at all be included in either the main Version History page or a split of that page, per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. IMHO a single page documenting a single notable update with coverage from Windows Central, PC World, etc. does a better job at not violating that policy than having all the content on one page. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 16:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Windows 11 version history. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The release itself (not the change log) can be merged to Windows 11 or Windows 11 version history. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:03, 12 May 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 speedy deleted under A7 and G4.‎. (non-admin closure) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Maheshwari (YouTuber)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Biography of run-of-the-mill YouTuber. No claim to notability, no coverage in independent sources, does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. Declined multiple times in AfC and then moved to mainspace anyway, so here we are. bonadea contributions talk 17:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 17:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Internet. Skynxnex (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe the article should be kept despite being declined several times in the past. I think it carries valuable information for readers and deserves improvement through the contributions of other editors in the future. All the information provided in the article has ample sources, most of which are published by respected news publications. While it may not meet the full criteria for notability, it is not completely negligible either. Instead of deleting it entirely, I suggest adding a tag to the article addressing the topic. The article is not intended to promote the person's popularity, and all the sources provide enough coverage on the subject that it is not just an assumption. I believe that placing an appropriate tag on the article that addresses the problem would inform other editors and readers about it and allow for further improvement. This approach is better than simply deleting the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prarambh20 (talk • contribs)

There are no sources that discuss him. Tagging the article doesn't change that fact. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all mentions of this individual are PR-ish or in non-RS. Vaguely PROMO as well. I can't find any sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of this article you find PRish? Prarambh20 (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The non reliable sources all use flowery language to describe the person. Oaktree b (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Quote that will change your life forever!" that' about as click-bait as they get. Very promo. Oaktree b (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then no objection. Prarambh20 (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Without (YouTuber) added on, this article title is salted itself after multiple G-speedy reasons being invoked, (same with Sandeep maheshwari back to '15) and I doubt they gained any new WP:N in the last few months, so this needs to be speedied as virulent creation evasion. Nate • (chatter) 22:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now I've added previous AfD history (including one which includes two 'ii's on the end) which just shows this is very tedious and that the subject will not rest to get on here. @Prarambh20:, please declare conflicts. Also a rarity for draftspace, Draft:Sandeep Maheshwari is salted. Nate • (chatter) 00:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not COI editor, just trying to defend doesn't cause any "conflict". It is very unreasonable. Prarambh20 (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrSchimpf, be logical. Prarambh20 (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am; you should know better, especially if the article is both under a non-standard title and the draft isn't properly titled and make sure there's no creation salting going on. If you're not able to discern this (or a clear draft that's junk and shouldn't be promoted to mainspace), you shouldn't be promoting articles out of draftspace. Nate • (chatter) 13:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Sandeep Maheswari is restricted, that's why I create the draft with lowercase last name. Prarambh20 (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then you shouldn't have created it!!! If it's restricted, then that might be a clue to think 'oh maybe we can't create this article or I should ask an admin what's going on'. 🤦🏽‍♀️ This is the most basic and common sense thing to do. Nate • (chatter) 14:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But Draft:Sandeep maheshwari isn't, which is how this swill got into article space. Nate • (chatter) 00:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough or reliable sources exist.Pershkoviski (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Nate. Mccapra (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom. Azuredivay (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, this person is notable in real life but not as per the wikipedia standard. It's sad that Indian media house is pathetic. This page should have been speedy deleted, as it's already admin blocked. Lordofhunter (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dafydd Hellard[edit]

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

Non-notable player who fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The cited sources can not support all the claims in the article, especially the ones about the player's personal life. Found only one coverage of the subject in news, where they are referenced once in the caption. Lacks significant coverages to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Lever[edit]

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

Non-notable player who fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Skynxnex (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reece Chapman-Smith[edit]

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

Non-notable player who fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Skynxnex (talk) 18:15, 2 May 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 23:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Economic secession[edit]

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

Article doesn't appear to meet general notability guidelines. Most of this article is cited to self-published blog posts, obscure American libertarian websites that don't exist any more or sources that failed verification. Talk page discussion from 2010 indicates this is effectively a vanity article for a non-notable concept coined by a non-notable author.

Searches on Google Scholar and Google Books bring up the term, but used in contexts that have nothing to do with the subject of this article. So if there is to be an article on "economic secession", it would likely have nothing to do with this existing article. As such, I'm proposing this for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism and Economics. Grnrchst (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all references the article does use are not reliable and all articles that refer to the term are not used with the same definition the article uses. I did find one discussion about "economic secession" used to refer to the same thing the article does, but it was on some old fringe forum so I disregarded it. ULPS (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG. Tempting to suggest a redirect to autarchism but that's probably a stretch. Ascelyn (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above discussion. This is a neologism covered only in blogs and other unreliable sources. This might just be a case of too soon for inclusion. Right now, as of May 2023, it is an unreliable fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom czar 10:28, 7 May 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ P1^{(talk / contributions)} 17:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Lake Line[edit]

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

This article only references two sources, one being a trainspotter blog entry from 1999, and the other being a database of locomotive photos. The article notes that the line has been de-electrified. Although this fact is true, I have done substantial research to find a source for that claim, and, as best I can tell, it can not be verified without original research (based on Google Street View imagery, it can be determined that it was de-electrified some time between 2008 and 2013). Ultimately, I do not believe that the current sources represent substantial enough coverage to merit inclusion under WP:N, and there are not sufficient reliable secondary sources to keep the article up-to-date. P1^{(talk / contributions)} 14:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Sources brought up by @Trainsandotherthings: indicate that there exist good sources, including one that confirms the de-electrification, they're just not easy to find. Nonetheless, it is undeniable that the article is poor-quality. I have access to the 2012 Trains Magazine article through my university library and will work on some improvements to the article in the coming days.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Texas. P1^{(talk / contributions)} 15:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is in a sorry state, and I'm not sure it's at the right title, either, but I am finding coverage. It's extremely rare for a railroad in the U.S. not to be notable. After some digging, I found an article in Railway Age that provides significant coverage, plus this cipping from newspapers.com. Both of these references came from GE E25B. There's mentions in a 2014 article from Progressive Railroading. This report from the Federal Railroad Administration also discusses the railroad. A Trains Magazine article from 2012 supports the decommissioning of the railroad's electrification in 2011, as cited in GE E60, a good article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a subject deserving of an article, like Trainsandotherthings said though the article itself needs a lot of work. I also agree the title itself could be more clear and concise, still the article itself deserves to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2 kewl fer skool (talk • contribs) 16:17, 2 May 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 keep! arguments make more sense to me. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of nicknames used by George W. Bush[edit]

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

How does this not violate WP:NOTEVERYTHING, a list of nicknames, seriously?

Unenclyopedic trivia. Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This proposal fails to provide a substantial reason to delete the article. "Unencyclopedic trivia" is not a good reason to delete, and the list cites sources that indicate the notability of the list as a whole.^[1]^[2] If you're so certain this violates NOTEVERYTHING, a massive catch-all section with lots of things covered in it, what exactly is it violating? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Reynolds, Paul (May 23, 2002). "Analysis: Bush and Putin on nickname terms". BBC News. Retrieved May 8, 2010.
^ "George W. Bush's Nicknames for His Friends and Enemies". Nymag.com. May 21, 2005. Retrieved October 2, 2011.

STRONG Delete For the same reasons I listed in the other 2 lists of nicknames up for deletion. 2 kewl fer skool (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless trivia. Athel cb (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; concur with Snowmanonahoe. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete a list. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Keep a venerable, noteable and encyplopaedic article that is almost 20 years old. WP:NOTEVERYTHING sates Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang ... are desirable . This is clearly a descriptive article, not prescriptive, so there's no violation of WP:NOT. I see even Dream, one of the most sensible and perceptive AfD regulars, has voted Delete on the nominator's similar AfD for the Donald. That makes sense as many of the nicknames over there are perjorative, so that article arguably has attack page qualities. But there's no question of that here -the Bush nicknames are mostly affectionate &/or cool sounding. Also, per Snowmanonahoe & Elli. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is it descriptive, it has one line a text, followed by a list that gives no real information. Some of which may not be nicknames, but mispronunciations. Others appear to be about different people. The one thing we do not have is a descriptive article, about his use of nicknames. No analysis, or explanations, just a list. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It describes the different nicknames for Presidnet Bush Jr. by means of a list. It doesnt need extensive analyses to be descriptive. WP:NOTEVERYTHING says descriptive articles are welcome but Prescriptive ones are not. If you were to point out something I've missed that makes this article prescriptive, I'd be happy to ammend my vote. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ATD - no other place to put this list. Notable based on the RS available. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason for a separate article for every person who has nicknames they give to people. If it was notable then mention it in their main article. Dream Focus 06:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources, the coverage of the topic in those sources, and the article itself militate toward it meeting our standards. I'm not sure what militates against it, other than it being really goofy: but then reality is goofy, and Wikipedia is about reality. It would be trivial to expand this article based on the content in it (although I am not conviced that tables are the devil in the first place). jp×g 09:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. Bush's penchant for nicknames has been noted by reliable sources, including Business Insider, the BBC and CNN. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think his habit of nicknaming people combined with the relative notability of those nicknamed and the coverage of the nicknaming warrant a keep. I get why people want to delete it, but I believe this meets the threshold to keep.--Mpen320 (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Complete trivia, and not encyclopedic. — Maile (talk) 01:43, 8 May 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 14:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of nicknames used by Stephen Colbert[edit]

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

How does this not violate WP:NOTEVERYTHING, a list of nicknames, seriously?

Unenclyopedic trivia. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Politics, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read NOTEVERYTHING? This doesn't fall under anything listed there. Keep for the same reasoning as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nicknames used by Donald Trump (3rd nomination). Elli (talk | contribs) 14:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete This is just nonsensical. At least the other 2 were about leaders of a nation. This is just leaving the door open for an article about nicknames for every person with a Wikipedia. It’s just pointless clutter. 2 kewl fer skool (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless trivia. Athel cb (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claimed NOTEVERYTHING violation is vague and meaningless, because NOTEVERYTHING is a long catch-all section that splits out into various subsections unrelated to each other. However, unlike the other two nominations, I do not believe this one is notable as a whole, and therefore fails LISTN. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The key policy here is WP:LISTN, which requires that the set of things listed has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. So to be kept, we would need multiple sources which discuss Colbert's nicknames for people as a set and not just sources for each of the nicknames he's used. The closest I can find is this and this - although they are by the same author so count as one source for the purposes of notability. I'm not convinced that any of the other sources provide the significance of coverage required to meet LISTN. If someone does find adequate sourcing, please let me know. WJ94 (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason for a separate article for every person who has nicknames they give to people. If it was notable then mention it in their main article. Dream Focus 06:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stephen Colbert. While I am inclined to move for keeping the other two (of nicknames used by Trump and Bush), this one is a different animal; the sources are not there, and the topic (i.e. WP:LISTN) isn't there either. Essentially, what WJ94 says: there is really not anything to suggest that people consider Colbert's use of nicknames to be remarkable or noteworthy in its own right (the fact of them being goofy is pretty much expected, since he's a comedian). jp×g 10:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LISTN. This is standard schtick for comedians, not at all restricted to Colbert, and therefore not considered notable or unusual. Also, you'd have an ever-expanding list, as his writers come up with more for every show. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total trivia. Orientls (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivia. — Maile (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable and fails WP:LISTN, as explained by WJ94. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:39, 8 May 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 13:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naked (band)[edit]

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

Unsourced article. Searches of the term only yielded results for a generic phrase "naked band", and only trivial mentions of the individual band members were found. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG Tutwakhamoe (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references and cannot be easily found when research. Strong agree it doesn’t meet WP:GNG 2 kewl fer skool (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wish I could delete all bands who YELL THEIR NAMES as if it makes them look important, but for this one they just haven't attracted the significant and reliable coverage needed despite a decade of existence. I found a few friendly interviews at bloggy specialist zines ([11], [12]), but otherwise they are only visible in the usual social media and streaming in services, even with a targeted search beyond the bland band name and focused on the individual pariticpants. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is some coverage in music press, for example- Fader in 2015 and NME in 2018, but I haven't seen enough to suggest that notability is established when judged against WP:BAND. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:08, 3 May 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 13:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicotine Records[edit]

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

Unsourced for over a decade. Only found trivial mentions of the subject where it belonged in list or just some passing mentions. Previous prod challenged, but the challenger did not provide any source in the following four months. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG Tutwakhamoe (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing for a record label, many hits for nicotine and "records" or stats around smoking. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsourced stub with no evidence of passing WP:GNG. Seems to be a non-notable company. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:15, 5 May 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 to delete. After somewhat extended time for consideration, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete, a well-supported argument that even if trivial there is sufficient sourcing to meet WP:LISTN, and no reason to expect that continued discussion would lead to a consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 01:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of nicknames used by Donald Trump[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Why the hell do we need such a silly pointless list? Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The media might cover it at times in various places, but I don't see as how this is anything but mindless trivia. Dream Focus 13:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime someone calls someone something even once, doesn't need to be on a list. The reference for "Mr Tough Guy" [13] shows he said that once about the guy. The referenced sources aren't about the individual nicknames, don't explain why the nickname exist or why its significant, just briefly mention they have one when covering the person or an event. There are many Donald Trump articles that already exist, a brief mention that he used nicknames for people could be added to one of them. No reason to list all of them in their own separate list article. Dream Focus 22:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AS to policy WP:NOTEVERYTHING, we are an encylopeida, not listverse. Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above statement, just silly and has no place in a encyclopedia. 2 kewl fer skool (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This type of list does have prescedent, as similar list about Stephen Colbert and George W. Bush both exist, and the latter one remained unchallenged since its creation in 2004. If the result of this debate is delete, I'll suggest proposing the other two for deletion as well. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do, in fact I may not wait that long. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a high number of sources covering his use of nicknames, so keep. This is a perfectly fine list for us to have. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - The key policy here is WP:LISTN, which requires that the set of things listed has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. There are clearly many sources documenting the various nicknames Trump has used for people over the years, but very little discussing these nicknames as a set. The most obvious I can find in the article is the Fox News piece but that is at best an unreliable source (and see the current RFC which looks very likely to conclude that it is generally unreliable for post-2020 politics). I'll admit that I've not looked through all of the 239 sources listed at the article, so if someone can find anything in there that would meet NLIST requirements, please let me know. WJ94 (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WJ94: from the article: [14] [15] [16] [17] Elli (talk | contribs) 16:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated. Meets NLIST so consequently I'd !vote keep. WJ94 (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial and pointless. Do we really need more evidence of what sort of person Donald J. Trump is? Athel cb (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) It has been established at the first nomination this article meets LISTN, and that has not changed (look at Carrite's !vote there). The second nomination affirms this. "Silly pointless trivia" is a vague, unsubstantiated reason to delete, and is also the only reason most delete voters give. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ATD - no other place to put this list. The list is notable based on the RS available. Lightburst (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It met WP:LISTN for the first two AfDs, and does so again. Even if Trump ends his days panhandling with an upturned MAGA hat, this list will still be notable. Edwardx (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful keep: I don't like this type of list. I think it's dumb. However, just as a topic, Trump's use of derisive nicknames has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Could use trimming, or better yet the inclusion of more prose to turn it from a pure everything burger to an actual analysis, but that is beyond the scope of this AfD. Curbon7 (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Maile66 and Chess make a very convincing argument on this article being just a giant BLP violation. I think the significant ones, like Crooked Hillary and Little Marco, are obviously historically relevant enough to warrant a mention at other articles, but I think this giant collection as a whole is wildly inappropriate in terms of WP:BLP. Curbon7 (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:LISTN due to the previously mentioned discussion of coverage as a group from reliable sources, which has continued recently with Trump's nicknames for Ron DeSantis: [18]. The list is certainly silly, but so is Trump and see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dingers5Days (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it is a stupid article about a stupid topic. But the world we live in is very stupid. As has been pointed out, there is a clear WP:LISTN pass from the number of sources which have reported on this topic specifically; some of the examples may be goofy but I don't think this warrants deletion. jp×g 07:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Beyond being entertaining, this article provides some useful sources to when/where certain nicknames came from that are academically useful. Also, as other editors have mentioned, clearly seems to meet Meets WP:LISTN. Could almost certainly use some trimming, but deletion seems like overkill and would result in some useful material being lost. Sammytwiki (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elli. RoadSmasher420 (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article has long been a dumpster fire of WP:NOTNEWS. That the former president has a puerile fascination with handing out schoolyard bully names to perceived foes is undeniable, and should see coverage in an article such as Public image of Donald Trump. But to literally provide an exhaustive list that sees the masses scurry here to breathlessly record it, no, this is unencyclopedic crap. Zaathras (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored. Just because this may be "mean" or "offensive" towards someone, does not mean it gets to be kept free from Wikipedia. Cable10291 (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that I argued for deletion based on the perceived offensiveness of the nicknames, then that is a lack of competency on your part. If Donald Trump had the predilection to give cute and happy nicknames to his friends and the media mentioned those adorable nicknames, I would still be here voicing an opinion to delete. Zaathras (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as explained above. Anonymous-232 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid argument for deletion. Zaathras (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP violations galore. This is nothing more than childish mud-slinging labels Trump uses to insult and denigrate anyone who fell out of favor with him. This has no place in this encyclopedia that has worked so hard to present public figures with a neutral point of view. Using Trump's words to do the name calling is not encyclopedic or neutral. — Maile (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent a long time trying to maintain this article since the 2nd nomination (mine). Right now, it is full of endless and useless non-nicknames. I've gained consensus for a nickname inclusion criteria, [19] but nicknames are constantly added that disregard the criteria and that causes the list to be cluttered up with trivial one-offs or random Twitter insults.

What I would like is for any of the keep !voters to actually put some effort into maintaining this list. It's a lot of work to verify citations for this nickname list. Maybe some kind of quote requirement for citations might make it easier to verify nicknames without opening a new page. But crap like calling a TV host a "crazy maniac" or a world leader "that bitch" or an actress a "washed up psycho" are evidently not nicknames but just random insults Trump said once. Without active contributors this article is a dumpster fire of a WP:BLP violation so I'll vote weak delete since we can't have massive BLP violations that nobody is willing to deal with.

And yes, I consider it to be a BLP vio to just repeat verbatim a bunch of insults posted by some guy on a blog, even if that guy was the President of the United States. Chess (talk) (please

mention me on reply) 01:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration on this, and also see the total list above as massive BLP violations. By comparison, List of nicknames used by George W. Bush, with perhaps the one for Putin, are not insulting. GWB's list seems more like good-old-boy harmless stuff that in some cases he might have used directly with the individual . Trump's are mean-spited and juvenile, and meant to cast aspersions on individuals. I don't mind the GWBush nicknames, but Trump's are embarrassing. BTW, good luck with your efforts here. — Maile (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cosign. I will try to use your 2021 RfC as a basis for deleting some of the nicknames; I edited/deleted the nicknames for Alles, Barr and Biden and will continue later. Dingers5Days (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete. please. this is ridiculous. lettherebedarklight 晚安 00:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:LISTN. PhotographyEdits (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Meets WP:LISTN. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this list article. Did the original nominator User:Slatersteven even read WP:BEFORE before nominating this list? It's already been nominated twice within recent years and nothing significant has changed regarding the use of Trump's nicknames to warrant the removal of this list. Does the nominator have any reasoning behind this nomination besides calling it a "silly pointless list"? Cable10291 (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Amazing how many editors baldly assert "Meets WP:LISTN". It's not good enough to point out, well, here's an article in My Reliable Source that says, "Trump called Sally Jones 'Nincompoop Sally'". What is needed to meet WP:LISTN is multiple articles in multiple reliable sources that say, "Trump has a pattern of making up nicknames for people. Here is a list of plenty of them." Without such references, it fails WP:LISTN. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Snowmanonahoe (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This ^^. The pattern is there. Rkieferbaum (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Meets WP:LISTN (as it did in 2017 and 2020), as explained by many above. Derpytoucan (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:LISTN and is well referenced Qwv (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the page needs some revisions. It meets WP:LISTGLOSSARY in my opinion, however there really should be additional literature discussing Trump's use of nicknames and the effects it has on voters. This will bolster its position as a notable page. _{too_much}curiosity (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, totally unencyclopedic. WP:LC applies. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is it silly and pointless? Yes, but if we delete silly and pointless stuff from Wikipedia we'll probably have about half a dozen articles, if that. The list is referenced to as such by at least 6 sources, so it's not just a collection of isolated nicknames. Therefore it's covered by WP:LISTN and should be kept. Rkieferbaum (talk) 14:30, 11 May 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 FC Zbrojovka Brno. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FC Zbrojovka Brno B[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG criteria. Unlike other reserve teams of Czech clubs, which have their own separate page (Sparta B and Slavia B), this reserve has never played in the 2nd league (professional competition) and only plays at amateur levels. FromCzech (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only found the subject mentioned as part of lists, with no significant coverage to prove its notability. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure if it's a redirect, not a merge as the team sheet is out of date. Govvy (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FC Zbrojovka Brno as possible search term. Giant Snowman 22:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FC Zbrojovka Brno per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:33, 7 May 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 13:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ShareCAD[edit]

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

A nonnotable website that contains a viewer for 3D models. The only potentially reliable source cited, a book from Springer International, is a trivial mention. I've done some searching and all I've turned up are some listicles on an unreliable website. I do not believe this meets WP:NWEB, WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG. MrOllie (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; while it sounds neat, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot to it. There is no way to get the actual software, for example, and it doesn't really tie into anything else, i.e. the only thing to know about it is that some people have a domain name where they have decided to run a web application. As the nominator says, there are not reliable sources to give any indication of significance beyond "there's some website online". jp×g 04:51, 3 May 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 13:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indus script (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation appears to be unnecessary. Does "Indus script" actually ever refer to Kharosthi or Sharada script? I was not able to find any evidence of it. Neither of those articles mentions this; in-fact Sharada script doesn't even mention the word "Indus" in any context. The creator did not respond when asked about it. – Scyrme (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is but one. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:25, 3 May 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 13:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aramean Democratic Organization[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Lacks WP:V and almost no sign of WP:IS. Information mostly from own website. Shmayo (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Lebanon. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 2 May 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. Anyone is free to create a redirect if they see it fit. ✗plicit 23:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C. 7–0 Manchester United F.C.[edit]

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

No indication of any lasting notability here. The result is big, but not exceptional - the only records broken were at club level. Coverage of this match is entirely routine. If notability is proved in a few years, no prejudice against recreating the article, but even two months after the game, there has been no suggestion that it will be remembered in the same way as (for example) Liverpool F.C. 4–3 Newcastle United F.C. (1996). – Pee Jay 10:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would generally agree. It'll be listed on web pages and various other sites and be regurgitated each year - but exceptional result by and of itself isn't indicative of lasting notability any more than the previous highest score... which was? (to demonstrate a point) Koncorde (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the reviewer of the article and I must admit I was tired when I reviewed this. I should not have accepted it.

Thanks, Wikieditor019 (If I do not respond, please visit my talk page) 16:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ULPS (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non more notable than any other regular season game. Results are fine in articles for each clubs seasons. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Consider also redirecting to 2022–23 Premier League. Giant Snowman 22:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a record score, not an exceptional scoreline and no sources indicating lasting notability. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's not even a Liverpool Premier League record; according to List of Liverpool F.C. records and statistics#Wins, that was 9-0, albeit against Bournemouth. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No lasting notability, not a record, so no need for this article to exist. NapHit (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a record, no lasting notability- it's not long after the match, and there's no continued coverage of it. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While 7–0 is certainly an unusual result in a Premier League match, it is not a record and there is very little more than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry. It is plausible search term and it is mentioned at that article in its proper context, but I would agree that it is not notable enough to have its own article. Dunarc (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was indeed a big scoreline, and not one seen in the Premier League every week, but no record was broken. There is no lasting notability. Fats40boy11 (talk) 20:18, 9 May 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 13:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weir Rose Bowl[edit]

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

Non notable sporting competition for school age children, only relevant to a few regions in New Zealand, and nothing comes up in searches outside of football clubs. Ajf773 (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and New Zealand. Ajf773 (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How the hell did this survive since 2013 with not one source on it! This article needs to be Terminated! Govvy (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:01, 2 May 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 13:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over Joe Biden's competence[edit]

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

This looks like a fork because much of this stuff is not being allowed in his main article. Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very one-sided discussion, hard to keep NPOV when all the sources are basically an attack. If this isn't "allowed" in the main article, I can't see it being notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Delete – If it looks like a fork and walks like a fork…. This is entirely an attack page reeking with ageism. And how is one of Trump’s twelve, insulting nicknames for Biden informative? O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Partisan narratives and criticsm, even when posed as "questions" or "disagreements" are not a controversy. I do not see RS narratives about any such controversy. This is a POV fork at best. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - people discussing his mental health is a controversy based on what? This is pushing a narrative just in title alone. Topic isn't notable subject. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Last time I checked. Section 4 of the 25th amendment has never been invoked, since President Biden took office. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Public image of Joe Biden. I don't think that sources having a partisan leaning prevents an article per se: criticism of Donald Trump mostly comes from libs, criticism of Barack Obama mostly comes from cons, et cetera, and we cover these things fine. But this article is not something that really inspires confidence. Note that it seems to have been drastically shortened since the opening of this AfD (and turned into something of a strange spectacle), but even before that, it wasn't anything to write home about. He says stupid things? He's old? And some people think he's a jackass? Well, politicians have tendencies towards all of these things, but we don't have articles about it every time they do (we would hardly have space for anything else). Note that Criticism of Donald Trump and Criticism of Barack Obama are both redirects. Those with more time on their hands than I have can check out Special:PrefixIndex/Criticism of and Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of for other examples. jp×g 07:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Essay. If it wasn’t already here, I’d mark it for CSD. BostonMensa (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel like this should be a sub-section on the main page article. Unless much more compelling WP:RS is published. Eruditess (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe redirect to the public image article. The health of public figures is a legitimate topic insofar it affects their public image and speculation is not presented as fact. See, for example, how the Reagan page treats the question of Alzheimer's onset. Biden's health is discussed elsewhere and does not seem to be causing any issues with article length. The title of this article extends its scope beyond that, and I see no way that it could be developed in accordance with NPOV any more than a similarly titled article about Trump, Bush or Dan Quayle. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK, WP:ESSAY, WP:TNT, and WP:SOAP. A coordinated attack on a person does not make it true or notable. This is essentially a political hit essay. Potentially WP:SALT. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: absurd content fork/essay. Save it for the podcasts, dudes. Neutrality^talk 18:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a snow close now. Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow will be 7 days, if wasn't speedy deleted already it probably gonna be another day. SNOWs usually for keeps. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snow closes are for any situation where the outcome is undeniable, keep or delete. Zaathras (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is basically a Rumble, TruthSocial talking point. Zaathras (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - any relevant "concerns" covered in reliable sources can be duly covered at Public image of Joe Biden and other related articles. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^talk 23:54, 8 May 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. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mangapps Railway Museum[edit]

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

Mangapps Railway Museum as an article has existed since 2005. In that time, not a single citation has been added; indeed the page has been tagged as having no citations at all since 2014. Searching what resources I have available to me doesn’t yield any useful cites to back up the article, which mostly consists of lists of museum exhibits. Danners430 (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Transportation. Danners430 (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with thanks to the nominator. If articles are unsourced they should be deleted or improved. Sources for museums are sometimes hard to identify. Heritage Railway journal does cover this museum in a number of articles. There ought to be some local coverage as well but on the first pass this is what I found. BusterD (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needing improvement is not a reason to delete. A search of the Vintage Carriages Trust website should provide plenty of references for carriages, wagons and electric multiple unit vehicles. There is also a link to a locomotives database, which might be useable. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's coverage in the BBC about a portion of the museum [25] and many of the locomotives are featured in a book [26] Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ATD - follow the advice of our editing policy and improve the article WP:PRESERVE. Editors above have pointed out that sources WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the WP:GNG. In need of expansion yet WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I have removed the tag since 2014, as it no longer held water. gidonb (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The tag was correct until yesterday, when the first sources were added - I’ll reinstate a more sources tag shortly. Danners430 (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m more than happy to withdraw the nomination given the addition of valid sources - at the time of nominating, the article was unsourced, so it’s glad progress is being made. When I have more time I’ll take a more in-depth look for some sources too. Danners430 (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for withdrawing the nomination, User:Danners430. Any uninvolved user may close this process with no argument from us as of this datestamp.

Again, we thank the nominator for noticing any page completely uncited and tagged for an extensive time and then bringing it to the community's attention. This is good user behavior, despite our good faith chiding. The article was improved, and the nom moved it forward. I would encourage the nominator to read and utilize WP:BEFORE, but I want this long time contributor to know IMHO this was a useful nomination and is appreciated. BusterD (talk) 07:00, 3 May 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 06:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Growth of wind power in the United States[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDATABASE the monstrous yearly data tables should be summarized with figures, which they already are at Wind power in the United States. All of the prose topics are already covered in greater detail at the main article, especially in the National Trends section. Wizmut (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Environment, Technology, Lists, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic WP:NOTSTATS. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wind power in the United States already exist. Lorstaking (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is quality information that is a subarticle of Wind power in the United States and also complements state pages like Wind power in New Mexico for comparative purposes. The figures in the main article don't show the same information so this isn't superfluous. Reywas92^Talk 18:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the figures (the bar charts in Wind generation potential and the stacked area chart in Wind power by state) do tell the entire story of the data, which is that capacity and generation are highly correlated, they have both gone up at a rather constant rate, and the trend by-state is identical (at least among the most significant states). More than that, the trends are obvious when looking at the figures, and opaque when looking at a large array.

If any more complex trends emerge, the answer would still not be a very wide and long array. It's just not obvious what you should be looking for, if you don't already know. The main article points out lots of things you might not know, like the most prominent states for wind generation and how generation varies by month.

If somebody was curious to learn about a less-significant state's wind energy industry, there exists Template:Wind_power_in_the_United_States which could also exist as a directory article with other generation sources a la List of renewable energy topics by country and territory. Wizmut (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Data tables in Wikipedia should be simple and concise in order to satisfy wiki's function as an encyclopedia. Large datasets are only useful as citation source for academic research, which I hope no one is using Wikipedia in this way. With the existence of Wind power in the United States, this article just seems redundant. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or smerge. This is a fork of, and an essay about, Wind power in the United States. I would not oppose taking some of the information and citations, and selectively merging it back to the main article. As it stands now, it's a mess. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 6 May 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. Been almost a month. Don't think anyone could divine a consensus out of this discussion, so time to call it for now. Feel free to renominate later if desired. Courcelles (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terror 2000[edit]

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

Not convinced this group meet any criteria of WP:BAND. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator. Doesn't meet WP:BAND PalauanReich (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as there is some reliable sources coverage at AllMusic with a staff written bio and 2 album reviews and a review at Decibel magazine, all linked in the article. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:12, 23 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!} 02:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources mentioned by Atlantic306 above are websites that catalogs bands and musicians. Those don't really meet the first qualification for WP:BAND, which requires online form of publish works instead. I was not able to find any major coverage in news or books, only passing mentions of the band or its inclusion in lists. There are not enough sources and materials to justify having a Wikipedia article for the band. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both the sources I mentioned are reliable sources as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. The AllMusiic sources include critical reviews of two albums that are secondary coverage rather than primary, the bio is staff written so is also secondary, the Decibel magazine album review is critical secondary coverage. These are the type of sources required by WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. No objection for keeping the article then. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:49, 2 May 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. Policy based arguments are all on one side here, and this is not a vote. Courcelles (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OtakuKart[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is mostly sourced with press releases/paid branded articles which are primary sources. Lacks coverage in secondary sources. Fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites, India, and Gujarat. AllyD (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Draftify This one is wierd because of the many sources that say "featured content" or "sponsored article", although I think it meets WP:NCORP and has enough sources. I am on the fence about this one though. PalauanReich (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, no objection. But currently this is sourced with spammy references and there is hardly any coverage. US-Verified (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying 2pou's reply below:

The website seem to be considered a useful resource by others in the spirit of WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals criteria #s 3 and 4. When trying the AfD source-search links, the site is actually cited by a published book and some GScholar citations such as this. Itsalldestiny (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (media) is an essay. This is not a policy-based argument. US-Verified (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the last AFD. The wikipage has enough citations from relevant news sources. It also played important role in the Indian Anime Movement. BW Business World was estbalished in 1981 an AnimationXpress was estblaished in 2005. like wise. Itsalldestiny (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i will delete your page.this time for sure. 2402:3A80:1EB3:4AD5:0:3F:32A7:9901 (talk) 21:14, 19 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!} 03:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will gladly report your page again, you dare alstand up against us. I will show you your place 2402:3A80:1CE9:83BB:0:44:AD1A:B901 (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you and what is up with you people? Stand up against what? Itsalldestiny (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that there are elements trying to abuse in the replies. Such as 103.177.172.199 , 2402:3a80:1b86:9e4a:0:4b:1d80:b201, 2402:3a80:1ce9:83bb:0:44:ad1a:b901. Thanks to RickinBaltimore and Riverbend21 for reverting the abusive edits. Itsalldestiny (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost all of the cited articles read like promotions, with pretty celebratory tones that made me doubt their neutrality as journalists. The "Notable Work" section is centered around the founder Shubham Sharma instead of the website, and the name "OtakuKart" was not even mentioned in those sources. Not enough material and sources to justify a stand-alone article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think they can force news media houses to force mention of OtakuKart as it would be promotional article then from what I can see here, Shubham Sharma is the markeing head of OtakuKart, as seen on his linkedin profile. Itsalldestiny (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly I'm not familiar with how Indian journalism operates. But when a paper is writing about an organization for big story instead of for promotion, the article will usually focus on facts and figures, use less subjective voice, and generally won't have disclaimers. The story-telling style of writing here is what really troubles me.

As for the notable work, just because Shubham Sharma has done something, doesn't necessarily means the website is involved. For example, you won't really see a deal with Saudi Arabia negotiated under Trump presidency to be mentioned as a "notable work" in the Wikipage for Trump Hotel. The article cited mentioned no involvement from OtakuKart, so it can only be used to prove the notable work of Shubham Sharma, not the notable work of OtakuKart. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know about this bizarre business with the IP address talking about "you dare alstand up against us", but these sources are not good. Let us examine them: the Deccan Chronicle one carries the disclaimer Disclaimer: No Deccan Chronicle journalist was involved in creating this content. The group also takes no responsibility for this content at the bottom. Yikesaroo. Sponsored post, i.e. an advertisement. The mid-day post is authored by "BrandMedia", whose authored posts on the site are this; it is also tagged as "partnered content", i.e. an advertisement. The outlookindia source is credited to "Outlook Spotlight", whose other articles are here, and feature content like "Vashikaran Specialist Astrologer In India-Famous In Bangalore (Bengaluru), Mumbai, Pune, Ahmedabad, Chennai, Kolkata, Kerala, And Surat" and "Best Astrologer (Tantrik) to Remove Black Magic (kala jadu काला जादू) in India. +919950524526", i.e. advertisements. The animationxpress source is not visibly tagged as an advertisement but clearly reads like one ("Aside from producing high quality products, OtakuKart.com also ensures to offer all of their products at affordable rates so that its consumers will also enjoy savings at the same time"); this doesn't seem editorially independent from the company. Nor does the aninews site (which carries the disclaimer "This story is provided by PNN. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of this article"). The Free Press Journal seems like a legitimate news outlet, but also does not credit the article to a reporter, and uses promotional language throuthout. The NewsX page is a press release; the Business World article never mentions OtakuKart. This leaves two sources: India Today and The Week. It does not seem like these add up to an article at this time, although in the future I would not oppose a recreation based on these in addition to potential later coverage. jp×g 04:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say KEEP.

Ever since I have started editing on wikipedia, whoever this is have just tried to jeopardize the work I have done. For example I have updated lots of local pages, this person removing information from there, reverting edit, messing it up. Same goes for the page submission I am doing, they are keep putting DELETE. Weird.

Regarding Outlook Spotlight, the time I used this as a citation, it did not have such advertisements. It looks really ad-rich page at the moment. Same goes for BrandMedia from Mid-Day.

I do however, would like to say that the OtakuKart has been repeatedly used on Wikipedia for citation in countless Wikipedia Pages. It has also been cited on a published book as well as few other books. Itsalldestiny (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you jp×g for this analysis. Bravo! US-Verified (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Draftify there aren’t too many sources, but I think a bit of time drafting would improve it. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:30, 10 May 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aurélien Hérisson[edit]

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

Article about former footballer who played as an amateur except for two seasons in the S. League, which fails WP:GNG. The online coverage is almost entirely routine/trivial (match reports, injury reports, transfer annoucements), with a few minor exceptions. There are two Q&A interviews included in the article (one from October 2015 and one from December 2015) with the first one containing nearly zero independent reporting, and the second appears to provide little independent reporting other than repeating the information the subject provided in the October interview. Aside from that, there is non-routine, but not in-depth coverage of his play in Singapore such as this 2014 Singapore League Cup match report; so Hérisson did well for his club in that cup semi-final, but it never translated into significant coverage. Overall, there's just not enough coverage for a player who is no more than a curiosity (an amateur French footballer who played in Singapore). Jogurney (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, France, and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], and [34], among many many more sources. Clearly significant figure in French lower league football who played 50+ games in the fully pro Singapore Premier League. 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) 17:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source evaluation:
As I mentioned in my nomination rationale, Hérisson was the subject of two interviews in French newspapers during 2015 (October and December) that are not routine/trivial. These interviews are the 1st and 5th links you provide above. As I said, the October 2015 interview (in Ouest-France) is all Q&A, with no independent reporting at all except this lead sentence; Du Brésil à la France, des États-Unis à Singapour, Aurélien Hérisson, 25 ans, a beaucoup bourlingué avant de poser ses valises à la GSI. At first glance, the December 2015 interview (in Le Télégramme) appears to include independent reporting (with a byline for Eddy Jastalé). However, when you read the October 2015 interview, it is apparent that the December 2015 interview regurgitates Hérisson Q&A from the October 2015 interview rather than establishing new independent reporting. As an example, the opening Q&A from October 2015 is Entre-guillemets Brésil, Paris, États-Unis... Coutances: « Je suis né à Campina Grande, au Brésil. Je n'en ai pas de souvenirs, j'avais trois mois quand je l'ai quitté. J'ai vécu ensuite quatre ans à Paris, avant que mon père adoptif ne soit muté pendant un an à Seattle, aux États-Unis. À notre retour en France, mes parents se sont installés dans un petit village proche de Coutances, dans la Manche. ». The opening Q&A from the December 2015 is very similar: Du Brésil à Pontivy en passant par les Etats-Unis et Singapour, l'itinéraire d'Aurélien Hérisson n'a pas été un long fleuve tranquille. Né dans l'ouest du Brésil à Campina Grande, Aurélien Hérisson est rapidement adopté par un couple français. Sur sa terre natale, il ne restera que trois mois avant de rejoindre Paris, puis les Etats-Unis pendant un an. Après ce début d'enfance agité, il s'installe avec sa famille dans la Manche et commence à chausser ses premiers crampons à sept ans à Lessay (50). Déjà, le poste de gardien de but l'attire : « J'étais attaquant au début. Mais j'ai vite compris que joueur de champ, ce n'était pas pour moi ! », rigole-t-il. The remainder of the articles following a similar pattern, with the exception of an Aurélien Hérisson en bref entry at the end of the December 2015 interview (but it's just an infobox entry). In my opinion, these interviews lack independent coverage and don't count towards SIGCOV.
The 2nd link above is a fairly routine match report (in Le Télégramme) from a 7th round 2016–17 Coupe de France where his amateur side was one of 176 competing, and he scored the winning penalty. This match was probably notable to fans of US Montagnarde (in fact, your 8th link is a blog from Mr. Yannick Moulard who appears to be just such a fan as he wrote a blog about that cup match), but nobody else. The coverage in not in-depth, and Moulard's blog cannot be used per WP:SPS. These cannot count towards SIGCOV.
The 3rd and 4th links are articles (in Le Figaro) about 3 French footballers, including Hérisson, who were left in contract limbo after their club Tanjong Pagar United FC withdrew from the league. Although this was not a routine situation, there is no in-depth coverage of Hérisson in these articles. Accordingly, they cannot count towards SIGCOV.
I also mentioned the 6th link in my nomination rationale (and according to your 7th link, this article was apparently originally published in The New Paper). It is a match report from the 2014 Singapore League Cup semi-final, and probably Hérisson's finest moment in football. However, the article itself contains little beyond a recap of the match and a set of quotes from Hérisson. There is not enough independent coverage here to be in-depth coverage of Hérisson. Accordingly, this cannot count towards SIGCOV.
The 7th links is just a list of search results from the NewspaperSG archives. There are 59 hits, none of which are accessible. A scan of the headlines and limited text shown indicates that almost all of them are routine match reports (with little hint of what coverage of Hérisson might be included). The January 2013 article in Berita Harian looks interesting as it corresponds to Hérisson's arrival in Singapore, but it appears to be focused on the other French footballers and staff rather than Hérisson. I'm not impressed by these hits, and since the only place Hérisson performed at a professional level was Singapore I would've expected much more if he was indeed notable.
Overall, I think your links are woefully inadequate. I've spent far too much time evaluating them, and would really prefer if you did the work first so others didn't have to do it. Jogurney (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're conveniently leaving out the 5th and 8th reference, which are valid and significant, meaning it passes GNG. And deleting a page with this much coverage seems a bit silly. Ortizesp (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read my evaluation very carefully as both references are covered in detail. If you think the 8th reference is useful, please read WP:SPS. I've already addressed the 5th reference twice. Jogurney (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Jogurney's evaluation of the sources. Subject fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage Alvaldi (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jogurney's source eval. Fails BLP, GNG and BIO. 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 04:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 11:29, 21 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!} 03:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the references are adequate, and I think his accomplishments are also notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are not multiple non-database sources WP:SPORTBASIC. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely false... there are many multiple non-database sources. Either way, this account is blocked for disruptive editing. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes GNG.--Shotgun pete (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a slam-dunk, but I do thing the sources add up to WP:GNG. Rkieferbaum (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources brought up are a mix of sports databases (useless). Some just quote Herisson, but that isn't enough to mean he's notable. Really take a look at these sources. How many talk about him, and how many just include his name? SWinxy (talk) 19:57, 11 May 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 06:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mustek Systems[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Only 3 hits in gnews. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Taiwan. AllyD (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. After the proposed deletion template was added on 11 April 2023, I conducted searches for sources. I found sources about Mustek (Chinese: 萬宇科技公司), a South African company founded by David Kan, a Taiwanese businessman, that sells personal computers. It has the website https://mustek.co.za and likely is notable.
This is a different company from the Taiwanese manufacturing company Mustek Systems, which sells image scanners. It has the website https://www.mustek.com.tw/ and does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's looking real "Mustek+Systems" grim on the web for this; while I dislike the idea of deleting a page about an equipment manufacturer (i.e. making it more difficult for people to use devices), it's not clear to me that they really have any products that are documented anywhere, meaning it is not possible for us to write a good (or indeed useful) encyclopedia article about them. Ping me if sources are found. jp×g 04:43, 3 May 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 07:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Md Minhazul Abedin Asif[edit]

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

Subject has not yet played at first-class or List A or T20 levels. Hasn't played cricket in Bangladesh at the highest domestic level; Claiming "international debut" isn’t true. Subject didn’t received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All of sources are actually interview (primary), promotional, for some reason almost identical and also from vanity news sites. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCRIC. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also Minhazul Abedin Asif, nothing changed since than. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the notability test. Sammyrice (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 16:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:03, 8 May 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 Thy Art Is Murder. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Adversary (Thy Art Is Murder album)[edit]

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

Non-notable non-charting album that has received insufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate that it meets WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Newspapers.com has no results for this album; the available sources on Google that I was able to locate fail WP:RS/WP:USERG/Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and/or do not go in sufficient depth/quantity so as to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thy Art Is Murder. Found zero reliable coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thy Art Is Murder as {{R from album}}. Not independently notable from the band. ✗plicit 07:20, 9 May 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 05:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Agents (English band)[edit]

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

This band appears to fail WP:NBAND and have no viable redirect target. The only mention of the band that I have been able to locate on Newspapers.com is a passing mention from '83 in the South Wales Echo stating that Nick Bahra was their percussionist; that is quite literally all that is said in the source. The two references currently in the article is a record store that is WP:CIRCULAR (citogenesis) to Wikipedia and a database listing. This is insufficient to meet NBAND's "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" sourcing requirements or those of WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable for a specialist wiki, no doubt, but not for a general global encyclopaedia, which needs to avoid WP:BIAS on all fronts, whether in favour of Anglosphere subjects in general or in favour of the interests of a particular clique therein, both of which are shown up by this article's existence. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Christina Aguilera concerts#Stand-alone concerts. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguilera with the LA Phil[edit]

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

Page isn’t notable enough, many artists perform typically 1-2 shows with the LA Philharmonic each year. For these specific shows, there isn’t much significance for it to have a page created for it Pillowdelight (talk) 04:35, 2 May 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 May 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with @Pillowdelight: Info about the events can be included in Wikipedia's article: List of Christina Aguilera concerts.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Christina Aguilera concerts#Stand-alone concerts, where the concert is mentioned. There is no reason to delete the page history. ✗plicit 05:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Christina Aguilera concerts#Stand-alone concerts per Explicit as an WP:ATD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:41, 10 May 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 07:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steffi Carruthers[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources exist but they aren't 'significant'. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of the article has represented her nation (actually a group of nations see Pacific Oceania Billie Jean King Cup team) in the Fed Cup/Billie Jean King Cup (which is a major tennis tournament), this can be verified here [35] and [36],while these are still just passing mentions, this helps a little [37] stating "Samoan tennis player Steffi Carruthers created history last week, becoming the first Pacific Oceania player to win a professional tournament.". This source here [38] also gives decent coverage of a game of her's in Pune. This source here too gives a decent amount of coverage to the subject [39], This one here[40] is a passing mention but it does state that she was the first Samoan to win an ITF title. The article agreeably may not meeet WP:NTENNIS, but the 2 or 3 sources which do give a decent amount of coverage should be just enough to pass WP:GNG. Bingobro (Chat) 08:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Lots of coverage in the Saipan Times [41], I think it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - added refs. There's a clear claim to notability as Samoa's first pro tennis player, and there's good bios in the Samoa Observer and Fiji Times to back it up with.--IdiotSavant (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is the first Samoan woman to play professional tennis, which is a a major claim for notability. If that's not enough, she has received enough coverage to meet GNG from the references. Thilsebatti (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tagifano So'Onalole[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources exist but they aren't 'significant'. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - best I can find are sources like Star Bulletin, which are just trivial mentions Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient coverage MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:23, 9 May 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. (non-admin closure) Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genghis Khan in popular culture[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that is just a glorified disambiguation page. Fails WP:IPCA criteria for making popular culture articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Popular culture, and Lists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep every entry is bluelinked, which is what happens with a well-curated list of notable entries. "Just a glorified DAB" is far more of an original complaint than it is a policy-based one. WP:VAGUEWAVE at WP:IPCA is unhelpful--I seriously can't even tell what the nom is complaining about. This is a new split, so the ATD is to merge back into the Genghis Khan article: a WP:SS child is not to be split out just to be excised. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An example of a properly done popular culture article is Titanic in popular culture, of which most is prose. Per WP:IPCEXAMPLES, "A litany of innumerable novels, TV shows, and films featuring Julius Caesar, dogs, New Hampshire, World War II, wizards, or hip hop is not useful to anyone. Topics of this level of world importance or broad generality never need pop-culture bulleted lists. Lists with bullets tend to grow – to the point that they become an indiscriminate collection of trivia. If a cultural references section is present in an article on WWII, for example, it should be reserved for major, in-depth treatments of the subject that have had lasting significance." It does not seem like most of the entries here have had lasting significance, with the list not differentiating between minor or major, or placing anything in context. I should note that while it is "technically an essay", WP:INDISCRIMINATE is the relevant actual guideline here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question What sources are there on the overarching topic of this article—Genghis Khan in popular culture? We have plenty of proper prose articles on X in fiction/popular culture/whatever—see e.g. Immortality in fiction, Mars in fiction, Genies in popular culture, Eco-terrorism in fiction, Loch Ness Monster in popular culture, and Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture—but those are written based on proper secondary/tertiary sources on the topic at hand, not mere TV Tropes-style lists of examples. TompaDompa (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It's WP:OR/MOS:TRIVIA/WP:NLIST/WP:NOTTVTROPES/WP:IPC typical violation that plagues many if not most 'in popular culture' articles. An indiscrimiante attempt to make a TV-Tropes like list of 'all works that mention Genghis Khan' without even listing a single reference that dicusses this. My BEFORE did not throw out anything great to resceue this, unfortunately, so I cannot even suggest a 'TNT and rewrite with this source' approach. Just TNT then, I guess - redirecting to seemingly better Genghis_Khan#Cultural_depictions (or maybe its 'In_modern_culture' subsection) might be best for now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article was spun out from Genghis Khan as part of a push to get that article to GA and FA status. Thus, any solution which isn't simply merging back into the main article would work. Thank you, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a recurring issue. As the essay WP:CARGO points out, Moving bad content into a separate standalone article does not get rid of the bad content. The proper course of action is to remove the content outright per MOS:POPCULT. TompaDompa (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it was just listing notable films, books, and other media about him, that'd be one thing. But mentioning every time he was even briefly mentioned, even just by name in a comedy parody such as The Private Life of Genghis Khan, I see no point to. We have Category:Cultural depictions of Genghis Khan. Dream Focus 17:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep in its current form, this does seem like it largely duplicates Genghis Khan (disambiguation). But I don't see a compelling reason this has to be deleted, and (with effort) it could become a better article. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- How could it become a better article? What sources are there to do that? TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Hope Springs Eternal? :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not sure if this is a disambig. page or a list article, but it is helpful for redirecting people to multiple pages on the subject in the title, i.e. Genghis Khan in popular culture. My very best wishes (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The disambiguation page already exists at Genghis Khan (disambiguation). Are you proposing this be redirected there? TompaDompa (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a content fork. I think it needs to be fixed by removing some items from the disambig. page and by making link from disambig. to this page.My very best wishes (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea. The dab page is for things named Ghengis Khan, period, not things related to him. I've actually demoted some entries there to the See also section. Some of those could be added to this list. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Popular figure. The article is warranted. Though information needs to be sourced. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Potential delete -- At one time many articles had a "popular culture", which hosted trivia about the subject. My fear is that this is another case of what was banned long ago. This might have merit as a list article, but do we need that? Or should it survive as List of works about Genghis Khan? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Serves navigational purposes, and this guy is clearly pretty popular in culture! –small jars tc 08:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some refs directly addressing his place in popular culture to the lede, hopefully bringing the article to bare NLIST on top of navigational value. small jars tc 11:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources ([42][43]) are by no means the kind of sources to base an article like this on. TompaDompa (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you right, it will be enough to say that a result of NLIST's focus on the group over the items is that sources that show notability are often not the ones to use as a basis for the body of the article. small jars tc 05:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find your reply a bit difficult to parse, but those sources are not on the topic of Genghis Khan in popular culture. The first is on Genghis Khan's legacy in the modern era, and the second is about a dish bearing his name. TompaDompa (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources describe the tendency for people to name stuff after him for his cultural associations. That seems to fall under the topic of popular culture to me. Is media the only kind of popular culture we should cover? small jars tc 06:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a list of things named after Genghis Khan, which would be something completely different. TompaDompa (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that we include every example of the tendency, but if it's discussed in terms of culture by multiple sources, I think it bears mentioning in this article and lends it notability. "Popular culture" is a pretty vague term though, and I'm not sure that the standard interpretation on Wikipedia is as general as mine. In any case, there are RSes directly addressing Genghis Khan in media too. [44] small jars tc 13:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is why it's important to go by sources on the overarching topic—Genghis Khan in popular culture—and use the scope they use lest we WP:SYNTHESIZE a scope that is original to Wikipedia. We can't start by assuming a topic like this should have a particular scope and then go looking for sources that cover the aspects we think should be included if sources on the overarching topic don't treat it like that. That being said, the source you linked above looks promising, at least at a cursory glance. If there are more sources like that, we could probably use them to write a decent article—but we would have to fit the topic and scope of the article to the sources, and it doesn't seem like it would end up being as expansive as has been suggested here. TompaDompa (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:LISTN providing information and navigation for our readers. Lightburst (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Genghis Khan has had far reaching global cultural impact. His main article if over 100K in size, and I dont follow how this fails WP:IPCA. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep ENTIRELY ok per WP:IPCA criteria for making popular culture articles. Johnbod (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly notable as a subject on its own. Capitals00 (talk) 02:09, 8 May 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 Moot‎. Already speedied. SALTing per request. Star Mississippi 02:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Parmar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Article has been created by multiple socks of the same sock master, and this latest is almost certainly the newest (SPI filing after this). Starting the AFD to get this deleted and hopefully protected from recreation to get this to end. Sources are two topic searches and a fluff interview piece on Times of India known for their paid journalism making it HIGHLY suspect. Ravensfire (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and India. Ravensfire (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This article contains 1 sentence of information and it’s simply the actors date of birth and role they’ve had. No real substance and certainly nobody of notoriety deserving of a Wikipedia article. Hard delete. (talk) 00:53, 2 May 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. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Letsgomoose[edit]

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

A premature article of a concept/plan/idea, without meaningful updates in almost 6 years! Just one media reference and 2 self-references. WP:NOTNEWS. P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The website of the project's own list of media appearances (https://www.letsgomoose.ca/media/) drops off at 2020. Deep Gabriel (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: See https://www.letsgomoose.ca/ Peter Horn User talk 01:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has a website. That really makes no difference re notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chief William Commanda Bridge#2010s. While the text at the target can be tweaked, nothing needs to be added. gidonb (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing needs to be added, then why create a redirect for a term that is not even being used in the target article? -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's right there. Just not linked. I should not propose linking if I propose redirecting it right there, should I? If followed, it would create a circular link. Note to the person closing: I'm fine also with the other WP:ATDs proposed below. There is somehing to be said for all and these should take preference over delete. Even some delete-sayers here do not object to an ATD! gidonb (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main Ottawa article and a small piece about transit. They can barely get the O-line trains built and running properly, this is only an idea at this point. From what I can find, I'm not even sure it's being actively looked at anymore. Oaktree b (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Only an idea at this point." Then what is there to merge? We don't need to mention ideas... -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Oaktree b that this should be merged. I suggest National Capital Region (Canada) as the most appropriate target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Two primary sources and one rouitne transportation news story Fails GNG. Found other brief ROUTINE news stories but nothing that meets SIGCOV showing notability. No objection if if a consensus forms for a merge/redirect target. // Timothy :: talk 13:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to hopefully narrow down what's to be done. There's different redirect/merge targets proposed but no agreement on what that target should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it was never a thing. It doesn't appear to have ever been a substantial-enough proposal to merge elsewhere. Walt Yoder (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per submission. Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I quickly found some decent references in the media. I'll add them to the article. Nfitz (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added four references to the article from four different publications, and expanded it a bit. The Ottawa Citizen one is an absolutely excellent piece - and the Globe and Mail article (which admittingly covers the same ground as the Ottawa Citizen piece) is national coverage. The other two pieces are from 2016 and 2020. I think though, the article would be better titled Moose Consortium. These references were easy to find - doesn't anyone do a BEFORE anymore? Nfitz (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New sources added at the end of the discussion = consensus to keep? Last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the improvements by Nfitz (compare the nominated version to the current one). I'm still not sure that this wouldn't be better suited to a section of another article about mass transit in the Ottawa region, though, since there is not a lot to be said about it. jp×g 04:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article about mass transit in the Ottawa area, User:JPxG; that wouldn't be the worst place for it. Perhaps one day it would be the start about an article about the history of commuter rail in the Ottawa area. Nfitz (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the transportation section of the National Capital Region (Canada). History person 2 (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per JPxG and the improvements by Nfitz. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:31, 5 May 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. There is consensus that the sources are reliable and valid. Voters also pointed out that the nominator didn’t give time for the article to be improved after creation before starting the RFD. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Collision (2023)[edit]

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

Gails GNG and EVENTCRIT. Subject does not have IS RS showing notability. Event received normal ROUTINE coverage, but fails WP:COVERAGE criteria. // Timothy :: talk 20:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Wrestling, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: They are the same sources used for the 2022 event, even from NJPW official site.
LIJ4EVA (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS // Timothy :: talk 12:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator jumped the gun, as he nominated the article hours after it was created not allowing editors to improve the article. Anyways I added more reliable sources which should allow the article to pass WP:GNG. TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell us which of the sources are independent reliable with SIGCOV? // Timothy :: talk 12:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources I added are reliable independent sources as per WP:PW/RS that provided significate coverage relating to the event. TheDeviantPro (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated above, reliable sources have now been added, as with last years event, this one passes WP:GNG. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell us which of the sources are independent reliable with SIGCOV? // Timothy :: talk 12:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source eval:

Primary, promo	NEW JAPAN PRO-WRESTLING". NJPW. Retrieved 2023-04-16.
Primary, promo	NEW JAPAN PRO-WRESTLING". NJPW. Retrieved 2023-04-16.
Primary, promo	3. ^ "NJPW announces Collision events for Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia". f4wonline. Retrieved April 16, 2023.
How Stuff works article is not RS. Plus it is from 2017, so it could not have any info about this 2023 event.	4. ^ Grabianowski, Ed. "How Pro Wrestling Works". HowStuffWorks, Inc. Discovery Communications. Retrieved October 9, 2017.
Routine news about a suspension, not SIGCOV about the EVENT	5. ^ "NJPW Suspends Juice Robinson For His Actions At NJPW Capital Collision". Fightful. 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2023-04-17.
Routine news about a player, not SIGCOV about the EVENT	6. ^ "Lance Archer Advances In IWGP US Title Top Contender Tournament At NJPW Collision In Philadelphia". Fightful. 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2023-04-17.
Routine news about a player injury, not SIGCOV about the EVENT	7. ^ "Hiroshi Tanahashi injured, change made to NJPW Collision card". f4wonline. Retrieved April 16, 2023.
Game results	8. ^ "4/15 NJPW Capital Collision results: McGuire's in-person report on Motor City Machine Guns vs. Aussie Open vs. Hiroshi Tanahashi and Kazuchika Okada in a three-way for the NJPW Strong Openweight Tag Team Titles, Kenta vs. Eddie Edwards for the NJPW Strong Openweight Championship, Hiromu Takahashi and Tetsuya Naito vs. Sanada and Yoshinobu Kanemaru". Pro-Wrestling Dor Net. 2023-04-15. Retrieved 2023-04-17.

The above refs are just spam links, All are clearly promo, routine news. Nothing that shows notability with IS RS containing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 12:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are not spam links, so I don't why you think that. Second source is a independent source not a primary. Third source is a source that is used in all pro wrestling events articles on Wikipedia. Fourth and sixth are about incidents/injury that happened at the event. Fifth source is a follow up to the fourth source and final source is a source for the results. Overall all these sources with expection of the third source provides significate coverage to the event and are reliable. So I don't why you claiming that they don't. You might as well go and nominate hundreds/thousands articles on Wikipedia about pro-wrestling events since they are essentially are sourced the same way and this article is no different. TheDeviantPro (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can also delete them. An article from 2017 can't talk about issues in 2023. Oaktree b (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear fail of WP:GNG (secondary sources). I agree with Timothy's analysis. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page is being improved why delete it. Timothy jumped the gun before more info could be added and most of these sources are used on a lot of wrestling pages. LIJ4EVA (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lol, did you not read my response? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be basing your vote on Timothy's analysis, especially when he calls reliable sources "spam links" and misidentifies one of the sources as a primary source when it's clearly not. Timothy's so called "analysis" is poorly made and straight up misconstrued. TheDeviantPro (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which source did I label primary that isn't? One is a reprint of a press release fromt the org and the other two are to the orgs website. // Timothy :: talk 03:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Wrestling Observer (f4wonline) source is not a primary, they did reported on the announcement of the event which they normally do for most pro-wrestling events. It doesn't change the fact that they are a secondary source nor it automatically makes them a primary source just because they reported on it. TheDeviantPro (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
f4wonline reprinted a press release and provided a short summary of the information in the press release. A reprinted or summarized press release is a primary source. [45] // Timothy :: talk 05:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's complete nonsense. A secondary source can't automatically be called a primary source just because they reported on a announcement/press release from a primary. It doesn't work like that, it's still a secondary source regardless. TheDeviantPro (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong as per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Since this is a reprint, it would be primary. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the vote, there is currently 3 keep votes and 2 delete votes. If a consensus cannot be made, the result will be a no consensus, therefore, keeping the article. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk)

Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO for the event, sources given aren't notable. I can't find any that discuss the event at length in what we recognize as RS. The New York Times and the like don't discuss this. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NJPW tweeted about the event and announced it on their official website. Their website alone should be RS like WWE's official website for their articles. LIJ4EVA (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, we can't use sources related to the event as reliable sources. Please review what we consider acceptable sources. [46] Oaktree b (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources, except the NJPW own website are related the event and independent sources, which are considered reliable as per WP:PW/RS. Wrestling Observer, Fightful and Prowrestling.net have been used in pro-wrestling related articles for YEARS. But the nominator and the people who are saying "delete", says they aren't even though WP:PW/RS says otherwise. TheDeviantPro (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see any problems with the sources. There's lots more sources here about the results: https://www.google.com/search?q=%E3%82%AD%E3%83%A3%E3%83%94%E3%82%BF%E3%83%AB%E3%83%BB%E3%82%B3%E3%83%AA%E3%82%B8%E3%83%A7%E3%83%B3+2023&client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=6b1NZPLuEJOh5NoP8pGd4Ak&ved=0ahUKEwiyh8P4s9D-AhWTEFkFHfJIB5wQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%E3%82%AD%E3%83%A3%E3%83%94%E3%82%BF%E3%83%AB%E3%83%BB%E3%82%B3%E3%83%AA%E3%82%B8%E3%83%A7%E3%83%B3+2023&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzoICAAQogQQsAM6BQgAEKIEOgUIIRCgAUoECEEYAVDLAlj8BmDaB2gBcAB4AIABXIgBmgOSAQE1mAEAoAEByAECwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1KatoKungLee (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Literally in the first page no secondary, reliable sources show up. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Sportsfan 1234 - https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/njpw-capital-collision-results-4-234245017.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABE5UwYaq8G9Oa5cQy64EUAQgppUIiynqhyKzeK9VQNjMLYXBAEpeV6DE_p-7gmzdonAkafo45uP1qCwFh64sc1pOQgQkRcUX2-NPQh0e6xyV-AJhzmNhHYpkaHZzmVrix7sKTHx_lqXjjJTG5hQNRMKaudeugC1fA7CHCMW7FPS, https://www.voicesofwrestling.com/2023/04/17/njpw-capital-collision-2023-april-15-results-review/, https://www.fightful.com/wrestling/results/njpw-capital-collision-results-415-triple-threat-strong-tag-title-match-kenta-vs-edwards-more and https://www.f4wonline.com/news/new-japan/results/njpw-capital-collision-live-results-strong-tag-team-title-match. Neither website has any connection with New Japan, who held the event.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources all check out as legitimate and NJPW typically gets articles for their events after doing some quick research. Failing to see the issue here. The article itself certainly needs some work but given it was just created I think it deserves some time to be brought up to snuff. Passes EVENTCRIT, strong keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2 kewl fer skool (talk • contribs) 01:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. CastJared (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: So, with any event that is scheduled to take place, you can make an argument that all of the coverage is ROUTINE. There does seem to be coverage from traditional wrestling RA (Wrestling observer, Pwtorch, Pro-Wrestling.net) and also a piece on it from Yahoo! Considering the event is in Japan, it's likely Japanese sources would exist which tips the balance for me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:41, 9 May 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 Gayle Laakmann McDowell. Courcelles (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cracking the Coding Interview[edit]

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

No notability shown. Among the sources is listed 1 is just a passing mention, 2-3-4 are primary sources, and 5-6-7 are here to show that it's "has been cited in peer review papers", each source not about the book itself. I didn't find any serious reviews of the books, and so I think that the article should be deleted or maybe merged into the article about its author. Artem.G (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ~~I am not familiar with the notability requirements for books, so I won't !vote,~~ but will say that this article and the article on the book's author, Gayle Laakmann McDowell, were both created by editor Duncan.Hull who was in my opinion really trying to promote this individual by using LOTS of NON-Reliable and/or NON-Independent sources to create and glamify both articles. Both myself and editor Grayfell removed much of that content/sources.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 23:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This debate should be about the notability of the book, not the notability of the author. @Avatar317: The fact that this book been through six editions and translated into seven languages helps establish notability. The less reliable and less independent sources have already been removed from both this article and the article about its author. Personally, I have used this book teaching undergraduate students in Computer Science and I know that it has been used in many other Universities around the world too. I'm not trying to promote the author or the book, as I do not benefit from doing either. I'm just trying to document facts. Duncan.Hull (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that the author is not notable. The fact that it was cited in several publications doesn't make the book notable, by this logic my paper published in a peer-reviewed journal that got cited 4 times is also notable. The fact that it's useful is also weak, and that you used it in a classroom too - not every textbook is notable enough that there should be a wikipedia article about it. Artem.G (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that newly added sources are not reliable (like freecodecamp - either user-generated or even promotional), or just wrong like google scholar - if you make the search stricter, "cracking the coding interview" [47], it would return nothing, there is no review of this book in peer-reviewed journals. Artem.G (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was also going to make the point that Artem.G made: "not every textbook is notable enough that there should be a Wikipedia article about it." For the record, I know of several VERY widely used introductory calculus, biology, & physics textbooks that do NOT have Wikipedia articles. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a weak argument for deleting the article about a notable book. Lots of notable books don't have pages, but you have to start somewhere. If they are VERY widely used, why not write articles about them rather than having debates like this one? Duncan.Hull (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly "notable" in your opinion differs from "notable" in my opinion and maybe also from Wikipedia's standards of notability. For the record, I would likely be classified as a "deletionist", maybe you are the opposite. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 19:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gayle Laakmann McDowell, because of coverage like [48]. Walt Yoder (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I expect quite a few academics will have a copy of this book because Google were giving out free copies to academic partners at events they ran pre-COVID (I got one in 2019). I'm not aware of any GNG-ish coverage of it that hasn't already been mentioned. Adam Sampson (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The detail is notable for Wikipedia. CastJared (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can you show, with sources, why is it notable? There are no reviews of the book or any discussions in reliable sources, so how is it notable? Artem.G (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are only 13 sources. CastJared (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the article? Check these sources yourself, or read my comments above. Artem.G (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gayle Laakmann McDowell. The book doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK; the sources that aren't primary or unreliable blog posts and Youtube videos are links to ACM articles which mention the book in passing. As someone in software, I can confirm that the book is pretty well-known and commonly suggested for interview prep, but so was "How Would You Move Mount Fuji?" and whatever came before that and so on; a business book being widely read in an industry doesn't necessarily translate to notability. As for The fact that this book been through six editions and translated into seven languages helps establish notability—no it doesn't. A large number of editions published is a relatively common thing for textbooks. I'm not necessarily convinced the author is notable on her own either, but so long as the page is there seems like a valid ATD. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Now that I have carefully read WP:NBOOK, this book does NOT meet: "1) The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3]" - The two sources which talk about the author and her book primarily cover other topics than the book. Those being the ZDnet source: Women in Tech: Gayle Laakmann McDowell excels beyond the stereotypes - After stints as a software engineer at Google, Microsoft and Apple, McDowell was bored working for large companies. So she started CareerCup.com and the HackerRank source - Gayle Laakmann McDowell Deconstructs the Engineering Interview Process ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 22:57, 2 May 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Schultz[edit]

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

Subject is non-notable, one source is the bio on his website, two are routine coverage of new shows on Animal Planet, which themselves do not have articles, so no plausible redirect. Other activities are unencyclopedic. Jdcooper (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, profiled in the NY Times and by AOL. WP:NTEMP applies. Also hosted a TV show on Animal Planet.[49] Park3r (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The "profile" in the NY Times is a review of a TV show he appeared on. And the TV show on Animal Planet doesn't have an article. If anything here should have an article, it should be the TV show. Jdcooper (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  There is significant coverage of the subject in the Times. The article does not have to be about the subject to qualify as supporting the notability of the subject.
  
  Sure, maybe the show deserves an article but that doesn't mean the host shouldn't. Articles appear on Wikipedia in the order that volunteers write them not necessarily in order of importance or notability. ~Kvng (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Primary, promo	1. "ABOUT donald schultz".
Interview, about another subject	2. ^ Genzlinger, Neil (10 January 2010). "A Toxic Workplace, With Ill-Tempered Clients". New York Times. Archived from the original on 15 April 2010. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
Interview, about another subject	3. ^ Friess, Steve (20 January 2010). "Vegas Viper Stunt: Don't Try This at Home". AOL News. Archived from the original on 9 March 2010. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
Failed V, 404	4. ^ "Domain.com". www.ellisawesomeworld.com.

BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. 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 07:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - News search indicates this meets WP:GNG. Here are some additional sources: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54] ~Kvng (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, happy to withdraw my nomination. Thanks! Jdcooper (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - There are no notable sources talking about the subject in the article. Also, the article has remained a stub for more than 10 years. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the sources provided by User:Kvng are not mainstream coverage. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain yourself. For instance, the Las Vegas Sun is not notable? It is not mainstream? Please point to the policy or guideline that explain that reliable sources must be notable. Please point to the policy or guideline disallowing stubs. Thank you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those seem to be minor local newspapers, not Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, which I think does not do favor to the notability of the subject. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, there's lots of "sources" at the page you link to which are completely unacceptable. Please read our policies and guidelines a little better, starting with WP:RS. Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources is a non-exhaustive list. It says so at the start of the page. It includes reliable and non-reliable sources. The absence of a source on that page doesn't make it non-reliable. Park3r (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after nomination withdrawal (and the comment that led to it). Rkieferbaum (talk) 14:40, 11 May 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. Ne prejudice against renominating for deletion at a later date. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Democracy Sack Dan Andrews Party[edit]

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

Small local party, gets some mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - bar Companions and Pets (which I get) it is the only party from the 2022 Victorian election without a page.

This party has:

- First ever openly trans Vic councillor/a current council seat

- Serious newsworthy claims that it was set up by a notorious figure

It arguably had more coverage than the Freedom Party of Victoria or New Democrats which both get a page Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My first reaction when I saw this article was that it was junk trivia. This was mostly based on the name of the party. Having now looked further into it, I have changed my mind. This is a real party. Despite the silly name, it is registered with the Victorian Electoral Commission. It is seemingly a single issue party, but so are several others on which we have articles, and this one has actually had minor electoral success. For such a tiny party and article, it is surprisingly well sourced. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a small, minor party. I can't find any coverage beyond them existing. Fringe candidate. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I can't find any coverage beyond them existing" - there is clear cited coverage of their founder/councillor, the claims made by Druery and asHiLo48 said it is VEC registered Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need extensive coverage of the "thing" the article is about; there isn't any here. Perhaps the founder is notable, this party isn't. Oaktree b (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a party that gains coverage, a reasonable vote, and is related to the Druery nonsense counts as notable. Newystats (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this a political party, or is this just a bureaucratic artifact of Tosh-Jake Finnigan's political campaigns? Walt Yoder (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a political party officially registered with the Victorian Electoral Commission. I'm pretty amazed they accepted the name, but that's what it is. HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep independent SIGCOV from Canberra times and Channel 6 give rise to presumption of notability. Jack4576 (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Albeit small in number, there are articles out there for the party - and even if its not notable enough to keep in existence, surely the NDP page should be removed too? I doubt the NDP can be considered more notable than RDSDA here. AmNowEurovision (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Victorian state election. ITBF (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This might become notable, but I do not think it has yet become so. A redirect as suggested above is the best outcome at this time. I have also tidied up this discussion. I hope I have not altered the opinions of anyone. --Bduke (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a party that undoubtedly became at least partly known because of its name, it has supposed serious involvement with Glenn Druery (who is notable enough for his own page), this party has a councillor and has received media coverage for all of this Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an actual party with legislative representation and significant coverage according to WP:GNG. Rkieferbaum (talk) 14:49, 11 May 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Market (Amman)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NEVENT. Borderline G11 // Timothy :: talk 09:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Jordan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These two sources appear to give significant coverage, and look independent and reliable to me. There is also this, although the coverage is less significant. Also these two, although they are less reliable and have an interest in getting you to visit. Nevertheless, the first two/three should be sufficient for GNG. Also, there may well be offline/non-English sources out there (WP:NEXIST) which are less likely to be picked up by Wikipedia editors, so I'd be more lenient with something like this to counter systemic bias. Agree that it could do with cleanup regarding its promotional tone, but that is no reason to delete. WJ94 (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and why:

Hello, while I get your concern most sources are in Arabic look up سوق الجمعة عمان if you want to see them so you wouldn’t see them if you looked them up in English here’s some links:

5.1K reviews (can’t find one right now)

https://www.urtrips.com/friday-market-amman/

https://alrai.com/article/668712/محليات/الأمانة-تنقل-سوق-الجمعة-في-العبدلي-إلى-رأس-العين

https://www.omallqura.com/friday-market-amman/

https://www.ammonnews.net/article/246963

that should satisfy GNG as for NEVENT it is pretty widely talked about for tourist sites (see second link) and there is significant civilian coverage. With 5.1K google reviews Here as well as [55] 10K Facebook followers. Ik these are secondary sources unreliable but they show the importance.

Also note that it is present on the Arabic Wikipedia meaning it fulfills these requirements at least over there [56] 102.184.181.244 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the concern here is some extra sources I've found in Arabic (note I was the IP user that replied beforehand):

Reliable sources for WP:GNG (translated title):

[57](Traditional Ammani Markets)

[58]Top 5 Markets in Amman we recommend

[59]Cheap Markets in Amman

[60]Intellectuals - Friday Market (Rough translation)

As for WP:NEVENT here are more secondary sources:

[61] Jordanian guys take me for lunch in Amman 🇯🇴 (Friday Market)

[62] What can you buy for 30$ in the Friday Market

If you need more check the IP user's post (which is me) Chacabangaso (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an encyclopaedia, not a directory of markets. Coverage given for this article is not sufficient to meet WP:NEVENT, and besides, two of the so-called secondary sources mentioned by the article creator are YouTube links. Someone walking around videoing a market is not reliable coverage, it is a SELFPUBLISHED source and so unequivocally not reliable or an indicator of notability. Some coverage does not make a flea market notable. The article is woefully sourced and I do not see sufficient reliable sources to meet WP:VERIFY for most of the content. Keep voters are literally relying on Google reviews and youtube videos to demonstrate notability, and neither of these sources are fit for purpose. Actual secondary coverage is shown here, and this is not significant coverage because it has a mere sentence or two about the actual market and mostly is just dates, times, and directions. This is the epitome of trivial coverage. I am very concerned about statements such as: The market is also a major retailer of used garments. Oftentimes buyers find sellers selling them for only one dinar. With the maximum price usually being around 10 dinars for heavy winter coats. There are many theories for the low prices ranging from buying "scraps" from European manufacturers to buying them in bulk from charities. However, they are not strongly supported.. Huh? This is the definition of original research. "There are many theories for the low prices".... This entire article is a basket case of policy violations and is not able to be cleaned up properly due to insufficient sourcing. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This belongs over at Wikivoyage: Amman, in a sentence in the "buy" section. Not Wikipedia. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please address WJ94's arguments Jack4576 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did address them. It’s not notable. The sources listed are directories from tourist websites, not significant coverage in independent sources. “Per above” isn’t addressing my concerns either. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and a local newspaper writing about what birds are sold there isn’t good enough either. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I understand now that the YouTube links arent trustworthy. I'd delete that if possible alas you can't edit stuff. I was under the impression NEVENT was for notability of an event so I wanted to illustrate its place in culture which part of that is YouTube videos, which I do understand is unreliable. Such the claim of that line of text being original research isn't true, it came from [63] this source. I am not opposed however to moving it to WikiVoyage if needed (When I made this article I didn't know about it). As for WP:VERIFY I'll look further into those sources now but they seem to come from people who work in the market and those who visited them. Regardless, I'll look further into them. Chacabangaso (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s unsourced without appropriate source to text integrity then it’s original research. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the quality issues aren’t the argument for deletion because AFD isn’t cleanup. No amount of editing however can overcome a lack of notability. Anyway, I’m not one for being spidey so if it’s kept, it’s kept and if it’s deleted, it’s deleted. I’m making like else and letting this one go. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: as per WJ94's comments above that I find highly persuasive Jack4576 (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. McCann[edit]

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

Non-notable businessperson. None of the sources cited satisfy WP:GNG, and the coverage is routine in nature. Bosecovey (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with numerous articles,even if not indepth, he meets WP:BASIC, as articles can be combined to demonstrate notability.Pershkoviski (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Written by a single purpose account, that has not edited since it set up the article in 2012. This reads liks a corporate executive resume. An internet search for Robert J. McCann shows his social networking accounts, plus the usual mentions of his various positions and achievements in the corporate arena, what charities he supports. Even the small "Personal life" section is not about his personal life. It's about his Irish heritage. — Maile (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Non notable person, fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hue Help[edit]

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

Created by a single purpose editor. No significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. 1st and 4th sources are dead, 2nd is just a directory listing. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:ORG, this isn't notable for Wikipedia. CastJared (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:ORG, as User:CastJared announced. Hamid Hassani (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: my own WP:BEFORE finds nothing, and the article itself has absolutely nothing (all the sources are from the organization itself). jp×g 08:11, 4 May 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.

[cabi-1] Valerie Porter, Lawrence Alderson, Stephen J.G. Hall, D. Phillip Sponenberg (2016). Mason's World Encyclopedia of Livestock Breeds and Breeding (sixth edition). Wallingford: CABI. ISBN 9781780647944.

[mason-2] Valerie Porter, Ian Lauder Mason (2002). Mason's World Dictionary of Livestock Breeds, Types, and Varieties (fifth edition). Wallingford: CABI. ISBN 085199430X.

[barb-3] Barbara Rischkowsky, Dafydd Pilling (editors) (2007). List of breeds documented in the Global Databank for Animal Genetic Resources, annex to The State of the World's Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome: Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. ISBN 9789251057629. Archived 23 June 2020.

[felius-4] Marleen Felius (1995). Cattle Breeds: An Encyclopedia. Doetinchem, Netherlands: Misset. ISBN 9789054390176.

[5] Reynolds, Paul (May 23, 2002). "Analysis: Bush and Putin on nickname terms". BBC News. Retrieved May 8, 2010.

[6] "George W. Bush's Nicknames for His Friends and Enemies". Nymag.com. May 21, 2005. Retrieved October 2, 2011.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]