Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 28	May 30 >

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 keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arcee[edit]

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

Another Transformer character is lacking any WP:SIGCOV. Almost entire article was full of OR and unsourced statements (crufts). WP:BEFORE shows nothing but full of trivial sources. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is mostly primary sources, nothing indicates it meeting notability requirements. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is an absolute mess and there's no obvious place to merge. However, Transformation: A Personal Journey Through the British Transformers Comic contains a page about Arcee from 219-220 discussing sexist portrayals. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could actually find sources to back up an article. I still think it passes the WP:TNT threshold where it's totally useless. If notable, it should be totally rewritten from scratch to sound less like a FANDOM article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. As a mater of fact Arcee is probably the most well known female Transformer. There is a lot of sources that can be used to expand the article. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Wikipedia's recent deletionism and hostility towards character articles instead of actually improving bad articles is a terrible trend.★Trekker (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly trivial mentions and a whole bunch of CBR stuff, which is a content farm created solely for SEO optimization. This WP:REFBOMB does not convince me of notability. If she was actually notable, only a few good sources would suffice. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated on the website's page, CBR has won various awards. Also, what kind of sources exactly are required to prove notability? This is a character who has existed for decades and received coverage by a variety of sources. Some mention her extensively, others only briefly. If you take them all together, even the trivial mentions can be useful in building the article. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Arcee was the first female Transformers to be created, and the first to appear in a major capacity; as well as often being the only female Transformer around. That alone displays some degree of notability, and there are various sources discussing the character; whether it's development or response. While the article definitely needs work, as StarTrekker showed, there are various sources about the character; whether it's about the G1 cartoon, Prime, the upcoming movie, or IDW comics. And in the case of the latter, there's also various sources relating to that and her status as a transgender woman, and overall representation of female Transformers. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. [28] [29] [30] Just looking through scholarly sources, multiple sources discuss Arcee to a significant degree, and under different lenses. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A single person's senior paper is not an immediate indicator of notability. Scholarly sources have to be cited by others to prove their impact. Don't confuse self published works with published peer-reviewed journals. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: There is a lot of sources that are still available. CastJared (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that the totality of the coverage in CBR is significant and usable, and additional coverage in books and scholarly works puts this over the line for GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rosguill, there is quite a broad level of coverage per BASIC, including academic papers. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:22, 6 June 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 Edinburgh Napier University. ✗plicit 04:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Tomlin School of Music[edit]

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

It's a department of a university. Other than a few brief press articles relating to the funding which was used to set it up, I'm not seeing much. I don't think it meets the notability criteria. JMWt (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Scotland. JMWt (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Edinburgh Napier University as an ATD per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Article at hand fails GNG. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edinburgh Napier University. LibStar (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Edinburgh Napier University. A nicely written article but standalone notability is too thin at present; redirect as an ATD. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2004–05 Royal League statistics[edit]

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

Same rationale as the precedent set here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 FIFA World Cup statistics. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Europe. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. All the reasons listed for deletion at the linked AFD also apply here. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all on first look I thought this needed to be merged, but no, unnecessary, delete under WP:NOSTATS. Govvy (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Giant Snowman 18:46, 30 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 Survivor: Nicaragua. ✗plicit 04:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jud Birza[edit]

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

Notable for only winning Survivor: Nicaragua. His acting, modeling, and musical credentials haven't yet proven him notable. Rather they have existed as part of his resumé. I've yet to see reliable sources verify (not his existence of his credentials outside Survivor but) his notability as an actor, model, or drummer. Furthermore, significance of his roles outside Survivor pale in comparison to his win in the Nicaragua season. If that wasn't clear enough, his non-Survivor acting roles were minor, and even I've not yet seen non-primary reliable sources highly emphasizing his appearance on front covers of magazines or books.

WP:BLP1E criteria or WP:BIO1E shall apply to this potential case, even when he might pass WP:GNG and/or WP:NBASIC, the latter the minimum notability requirement for individuals. IMO, should be redirected to Survivor: Nicaragua. In case he fails NBASIC, failing NBASIC but then passing WP:NACTOR (or WP:ANYBIO) special criteria does not mean WP:BIOSPECIAL—which suggests merger/redirecting to an existing article about broader related topic (or creating or requesting an article about that broader topic if not yet existent)—shall be overlooked or ignored. George Ho (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Music, Television, and Missouri. George Ho (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Survivor: Nicaragua. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT Agree it should redirect to Survivor: Nicaragua Go4thProsper (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Survivor: Nicaragua and Move Protect. This is just fancruft for a WP:BLP1E. The vast bulk of the article is completely uncited OR. Softlavender (talk) 02:45, 1 June 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 04:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conference on Information Technology, Organisations and Teams[edit]

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

dubious notability, no reliable references JoeNMLC (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely unsourced other than archive.org's (partial) archive of the conference website. No claim of notability and no independent references. Walt Yoder (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search turns up one call for participation and an archived conference paper. That's it, beyond being listed in acronym lists. Lamona (talk) 09:27, 31 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 04:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KiMs[edit]

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

non-notable snack brand ~T P W 17:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 17:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 29 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Schneider[edit]

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

Non-notable individual of a non-notable chapter of an organization which does not appear notable. Not enough in-depth coverage for them to passWP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nommed. I posted some advice on the creating editor's TP, hoping to get some sort of response, but it's been three days and so far nothing. I could live with draftification, too, but the creator must expressly agree to this as they've already moved it out of drafts twice. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Discrimination, Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and Massachusetts. Skynxnex (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging User:SusunW as this AfD nom is relevant to earlier RfC discussion regarding SIGCOV requirements, and the effect it has on notability in practice for historically marginalised peoples

as it stands I don’t think this article meets GNG or WP:BIO, regrettably

Jack4576 (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting because I was pinged, but am not !voting because WP:Canvas. There is plenty to indicate that Schneider is notable, This (p9) says she was the Service Employees International Union's "International Vice President and the first SEIU Global Organizing Director". This (p 149) says she was the international affairs staffer and a deputy trustee of the United Healthcare Workers. This (p 15) says she was working as a union organizer in Cincinnati by 1986. This (p19) says she was the regional coordinator of District 925 of the SEIU in 1989. All indicate more significance than a routine worker. That said, many sources from this period are not digitized and I do not have access to many of them. This is going to take quite a bit of work by someone who has access to period sources, (period sources would be required as many of the current sources rely on the interview, thus are not independent) or a library with interlibrary loan abilities. (I am not in the US and have no access to library loans.) Debbie Schneider is a very common name and I would suggest searching using terms like "Debbie Schneider, Women Office Workers", "Debbie Schneider, United Healthcare Workers", ""Debbie Schneider, Service Employees International Union", etc. As it stands, the sources used in the article do not constitute reliable secondary curated sources or sigcov. The interview can be used to supplement data published in RS which establish notability, but it cannot be used to determine notability or as sigcov. To constitute sigcov, sufficient curated, independent, reliable sources to give a career trajectory with biographical data would need to be found. SusunW (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is plenty to indicate she is more likely than not notable in the colloquial sense but as it stands SIGCOV is the barrier to WP’s definition of notability Jack4576 (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 9to5. The organization appears to be marginally notable, but Schneider is not. Being something other "than a routine worker" is not enough. All I'm seeing are passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - She also goes by Deborah Schneider, and articles at newspapers.com are available with that name. I have added one to the article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
unfortunately I don’t think the passing references in those articles are going to amount to enough to satisfy the editors that demand SIGCOV Jack4576 (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on this. Once I have a better sense of the information, I will expand my comments. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Schneider is best known for her work on negotiations at the University of Cincinnati that led to the founding of a clerical union. She was the lead organizer during the period from 1984 at least through 1989 for this work. The article with the most significant coverage of her dates from when she was named the national president of the District 925 union.^[1] In addition, she meets WP:BASIC given her coverage in multiple, reliable sources. As I was considering this article, I have also tidied it up as it was redundant and had an inappropriate tone. Should this article be kept, I think it should move to Deborah Schneider as that is the name more commonly found in the news. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I have added some secondary sources on 9to5 that mention Schneider's role in the organization to improve the notability, namely the Windham sources Public-historian-90 (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Flynn, Terry (July 9, 1993). "Service-employees union leader becomes president of District 925". The Cincinnati Enquirer; Cincinnati, Ohio. Retrieved 2023-05-13.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Should not be redirect to 9to5, as Debbie Schneider has had positions in other organisations as well. In terms of references, I discovered only a few that support the subject's importance. It may be a Soft Keep, according to me. Gothamk (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not seeing sufficient independent SIGCOV sources to warrant an article. Articles written by colleagues like Karen Nussbaum and Ellen Cassedy, passing mentions and quotations (including pieces reporting what she said without quotation marks, and especially pieces derived from press releases) in local news, and PR from orgs she belongs to do not count towards notability. JoelleJay (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this particular article right now. But there is also an underlying note that an article on this subject could be justified if the terms are better defined and statistics are sourced. So this deletion shouldn't cover a similar but better article from being created. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest languages without official status[edit]

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

WP:OR WP:SOAPBOX. The premise of the article seems to be that these languages should have an official status due to their sheer size, i.e. number of speakers. That is entirely an opinion. There are also no obvious WP:LISTCRIT, e.g. which languages are not "large" enough to be listed amongst the "largest"? Almost entirely WP:UNSOURCED as well, ever since creation 10 years ago. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Law. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both "official status" and "language" are nebulous terms, leading this article to be excessively political. It is also categorizing things by what they are not, which I thought was discouraged (though I can't find the policy). Why is Min Chinese not listed? Is it not a language? Is it official somewhere (in a way that Wu Chinese (Shanghainese) is not)? Is it broken into sub-languages? The conception of the list makes it impossible to say. Walt Yoder (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It's always difficult/impossible to prove a negative. Precisely because it is not written down, it is impossible to know which languages are not meant, and in which manner they are not official. The only "source" provided seems to have been WP:SYNTHed: Writing Systems of the World: Alphabets, Syllabaries, Pictograms (1990), ISBN 0-8048-1654-9 — lists official languages of the countries of the world, among other information. So it listed which official languages there were around the world in 1990, and apparently any language that was not found in this book was thereby branded "without official status". Then figures of speakers were pulled from somewhere we don't know, arranged by languages-with-largest-number-of-speakers-not-mentioned-in-the-1990-book-with-an-arbitrary-threshold-for-the-word-"largest". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Impossible to prove something this vague in the negative. Dronebogus (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that this is WP:OR: The act of extracting and listing the gist of external material on some topic is what makes an encyclopedia. I disagree that this is WP:SOAPBOX: there is no emotive or political language. I cannot see any text that justifies the comment "The premise of the article seems to be that these languages should have an official status due to their sheer size,." Also the comment that "both "official status" and "language" are nebulous terms" is underwhelming: just because there is a grey zone between 'language' and 'dialect' does not mean that all articles that do not have the strictest definition of 'language' should be deleted because of that, surely? (For example, the PRC considers as dialects what non-Chinese linguists from the rest of the world as languages: does that mean that, say, material that calls Fujianese a language must not be cited as being nebulous? IYSWIM) However, it would be better to correct and update this page using the respected Ethnologue, which would be the goto source. I suggest just tagging the page as needing citations and possibly obsolete. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is WP:SOAPBOX: there is no emotive or political language. I cannot see any text that justifies the comment "The premise of the article seems to be that these languages should have an official status due to their sheer size".

The title itself suggests that the absence of official status is significant. The rest of the article implies that this is a bad thing. This is most clearly expressed in the categories:

Category:Language policy

Category:Minority languages

Category:Linguistic rights

Category:Majority–minority relations

Category:Sociolinguistics lists

Category:Linguistic discrimination

Category:Largest thingsLanguages without official status

The lack of official status is linked to "linguistic rights" and "linguistic discrimination", the clearest indication that this list has been developed with the idea that certain languages should have official status in order to comply with certain "linguistic rights" and end certain "linguistic discrimination". This is further emphasised by suggesting such situations come about by languages without official status being "minority languages", and that that the majority language has set a "language policy". "Majority-minority relations" implies the minority is being "discriminated", despite their "rights". (Strangely, nobody seems to notice a potential conflict by being "largest languages without official status" on the one hand, but still being "minority languages" on the other; it is of course possible for the largest language in a country to not be the official language, see Punjabi language in Pakistan, where only Urdu and English are official at the countrywide level). Finally, not too subtly, it is suggested that this is not just bad, but a great wrong, to be included in a list of largest things. It's not just a practical cap (which the article itself suggests), but a highlight of the largest bad situations in which allegedly people of "minority languages" are being "linguistically discriminated" against, despite their alleged "linguistic rights". Obviously, this violates Wikipedia:Righting Great Wrongs.

Most of these categories have been around ever since the first version, which was split off from Minority language.

No justification for any of these categories is provided within the article itself. It is just assumed that this lack of official status all fits into this context of a violation of linguistic rights. This is why it is supposedly significant. All of this simply cannot pass WP:SOAPBOX and WP:OR. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I could possibly see an article on "most widely spoken languages that are not a country's official language", although it would need to be very well-defined and properly referenced. As it stands, this article looks more like a WP:TNT case. Unless we have high quality RS going through the definitions and terminology in a coherent and consistent way, then I can't see this article surviving. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs WP:TNT in its current state, and I haven't found sources that would meet WP:NLIST. DFlhb (talk) 05:02, 5 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Halal Development Corporation[edit]

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

The subject does not meet the notability guidelines established by Wikipedia. The organization, although potentially important in its niche, does not have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that would justify its existence as a standalone Wikipedia article.

The references provided within the article are few in number and insufficient to establish notability. The majority of the citations stem from the organization's own materials or affiliated promotional sources, which do not adhere to Wikipedia's requirement for neutral, third-party coverage. The scarcity of verifiable, independent sources raises concerns about the organization's impact and relevance in the broader context. Lulakayd (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 8 May 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 14:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: you haven't mentioned this in the nom; did you search for other sources including local sources? Jack4576 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Halal Development Corporation Berhad (HDC) plays a pivotal role as a government-backed institution and attempts to become a global Halal hub. However, even with its expansion of services globally and partnerships for Halal industry development in other countries, the general notability and sources are in question. --BoraVoro (talk) 11:21, 2 June 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. No consensus for a concrete outcome has occurred herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma AB[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP; it seems only to be present online in directories ~T P W 16:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 16:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only found one business management study that uses the firm as subject (1). Until more sources are found, the firm doesn't seem to be notable enough for an article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tutwakhamoe: This is (an ambitious, it seems) bachelor thesis, which might not be obvious if one doesn't speak Swedish, so I don't think we can base too much on that. But there's a row of fairly substantial coverage in Dagens Industri (the dominating business newspaper in Sweden) and Sydsvenskan (the dominating newspaper in southern Sweden) available to subscribers of w:sv:Mediearkivet, so I think it can be kept anyway. /Julle (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough non-trivial coverage in Swedish newspapers for me to consider Sigma relevant, if we look in the one archive I've got access to. There's the 20 February 2018 full-page article in Dagens Industri, "Sigma brädar börskonsulter". I guess this one is an online equivalent, but since it's paywalled I'm not sure. There's "Bildar ny konsultjätte" from 16 June 2017, also in Dagens Industri, and "Dan Olofsson lägger bud på hela Sigma" from Sydsvenskan 21 January 2013, which goes beyond the typical short notice about someone wantin to acquire a company. There's "VD:ns öppna kort hjälpte inte Sigma" (Dagens Industri) 2 November 2000, "Sigma siktar på att tredubbla styrkan" (Sydsvenskan, 4 May 2001) and so on. In short, there's substantial coverage, over time, from more than one source. I've added some of these as sources. /Julle (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All mentioned articles can be double-checked by anyone with access to sv:Mediearkivet, which would include students and staff at Swedish universities as well as editors who have access through Wikimedia Sweden. /Julle (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional WP:COI, written January-February 2010 by Jetplett. Same editor also created Danir AB (2010-01-15), Thanda Private Game Reserve (2010-01-15), Star for Life (2010-02-08) — Maile (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maile66: The article created by Jetplett in 2010 was indeed promotional and not at all what we want for encyclopedic content. But basically nothing remains of that article? It's been edited by ~25 persons over 13 years since then. It should be judged on its own merits, not based on whether an earlier version was a promotional COI article. /Julle (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is now supported by reliable sourcing from major swedish news outlets. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The references are well known and establishing notability now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaikha Habiba (talk • contribs) 08:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: Blocked as a sockpuppet. Courcelles (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. references establishes notability and are good. BabbaQ (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources in the article are routine brief business news, some of it sourced from company information, and a mention, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Routine business news about a business transaction, not SIGCOV showing notability	1. "Sigma buys two Internet companies" . Dagens Nyheter (in Swedish). 11/12/1999 . Retrieved 2023-05-12 .
Routine business news, about a bid for the company, not SIGCOV showing notability	2. ^ "Bid for Sigma" . Dagens Nyheter (in Swedish). 2008-03-27 . Retrieved 2023-05-12 .
Brief mention, not SIGCOV	3. ^ Heirn, Pontus (20 February 2018). "Sigma boards stock market consultants". Dagens Industri (in Swedish). p. 10.
Routine business news, about proposed business transaction, not SIGCOV showing notability	4. ^ Satz, Lotta (21 February 2013). "Dan Olofsson bids for all of Sigma". Southern Sweden . p. 25.
Routine business news, about company forecasts, not SIGCOV showing notability	5. ^ Ericson, Niklas (4 May 2001). "Sigma Aims to Triple Strength". Sydsvenskan (in Swedish).

// Timothy :: talk 04:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlue: I have to disagree with your source assessment of sources 3 and 5, and maybe 4.

1 and 2 are short, brief mentions. Source 3 is a full-page, 1000 word article, which you have described as "Brief mention". I disagree that source 5 is routine business news; its focus is not on company forecasts and I'd say it's more of an article (~800 words) on the company and what it has been doing in general than because of its forecasts. The fact that whoever wrote the headline chose to focus on that aspect doesn't define the text. I also think source 4 goes beyond the typical routine business news, but that's debatable. /Julle (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:03, 29 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. AfD was withdrawn, and a clear consensus to keep based on WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Barrett[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Person does not meet WP:GNG as their is a lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject significantly covering her biography. No comment on whether or not her fund is notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a quick response, to quote my WP:ES opposing the PROD: Person is highlighted as "Five Fascinating Philanthropists" by Barron's. That's a direct claim. President and founder of an organization that has ref to support its own potential notability is a direct claim, though not as strong. So *at least* either the person or org merit an article, and she seems stronger. That Barron's link has already been in the article, no idea why Muboshgu isn't accepting it as a GNG ref. DMacks (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that one article in Barron's can contribute to GNG (though you didn't provide the url so I can't see how in-depth it goes), but one article alone does not establish it. This source doesn't mention the subject of the article. Nor does this. This one and this one are not independent of the subject. My WP:BEFORE found nothing else. So where's the significant coverage in multiple independent sources? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being a founder/major player in an organization can help support notability even if not itself and alone sufficient depending on the organization. Alternately, a not-quite-notable person with that role would generally be merged with the organization's article (the parent from which notability was not inherited). So please read carefully my comment about how "person and organiztation" at least seem to merit an article for one of them and why there is a key ref for the organizgation that doesn't specifically mention the person. DMacks (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to your deletion-nomination, I had added a ref about an award she had won. While I did not at the time emphasize the award (I instead was using it as a ref for some bio details), it would seem that's another GNG ref you might have overlooked. DMacks (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BASIC. See:
- this 1975 profile in the Boston Globe ("Boss woman—with few rules")
- a few paragraphs in this 1973 article, also in the Globe ("A woman's place can be in business")
- several paragraphs of biographical information in this 1998 profile of her husband in a widely syndicated piece from the Globe ("Deconstructing Bob Vila")
- this article about her and her fund in the Palm Beach Daily News (Fund aims 'to connect audiences to action')
pburka (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BASIC per DMacks and Pburka. Sal2100 (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw based on WP:HEY and WP:SNOW. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to pass WP:BIO KylieTastic (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian heresies[edit]

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

The idea of heresy (strongly wrong opinion) requires an orthodoxy. The vision of what the orthodoxy is depends on the denomination you ask. Some Protestants today are Iconoclasts, others are Modalists, etc. While there is a concept of heresy within most of Christendom, making a list of all heresies for the whole Christendom is impossible and biased.

Therefore, I think this page shoud be deleted. Veverve (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename: List of Christian doctrinal disputes/doctrinal differences/interminable arguments/rationales for schisms or something like that. Arguing about subtle points of theology has been part of Christianity since the beginning. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing about subtle points of theology has been part of Christianity since the beginning: I agree and this is not what I am arguing against. Veverve (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a reasonably well cited list, and NPOV doesn't require us to exercise editorial control over what is or is not a heresy--we rely on RS'es to do that. The list as it stands now is a pretty fair representation of things considered heretical throughout Christendom. Obviously, that's not going to be universal, but it needn't be: What do a preponderance of RS'es call heresies? Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that the list is limited to notable heresies with their own articles. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was a uniform orthodoxy until the Catholic/Orthodox split and with the exception of the last entry, the article deals only with those “classic” heresies. Later on the question becomes much more complex but the article wisely steers clear of these times. As noted above, all of the heresies listed are notable in their own right. Mccapra (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a uniform orthodoxy until the Catholic/Orthodox split: this is a clear POV (that includes the Great Church canard), see Diversity in early Christian theology. Veverve (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the article wisely steers clear of these times: just now the 17th-century Jansenism was added by the article creator. Veverve (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: The article is now heading to be a compilation of every belief that any Christian denomination considers a heresy (e.g. Papism). Veverve (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The POV of the list does not refer to any specific denomination. This list includes theological arguments that have been classified as heresies by major Christian denominations (Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant) at some point. For example, Iconoclasm, a doctrine held by some Protestant denominations, was condemned as heresy by the Second Council of Nicaea, which makes it eligible for inclusion on the list.

Exanx777 (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just rename it List of Catholic heresies, if not all Christians believe these are heresies. Or have a column added showing which religions consider it heresy. Dream Focus 04:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: it already exists as List of heresies in the Catholic Church. Veverve (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article already organizes heresies by what churches consider them to be so. WP:NPOV is conserved and this motion has little meaning. TangoFett (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep The article is useful, thorough, well cited and is a good Wikipedia gateway. The original justification for deleting this (which seems to be that to list something as a heresy is to positively state it is a heresy) does not hold water, because the list specifically has a column disclosing which churches hold the view as heresy. (That user has made a number of edits and deletions before retiring a few days ago.)Rick Jelliffe (talk) 00:50, 3 June 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. Per consensus from established editors. Star Mississippi 00:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kadambari Jethwani[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non notable actress/ doctor/ chess champion. Appears to be full of fluff, and the only reference from a reliable source I can find about her is this - [31] which is an interview. Fails WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 13:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, United Arab Emirates, and India. Jupitus Smart 13:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete links appear to show a number of articles in peer-reviewed publications, but I suspect the citation factor for this individual won't be very high. Rest of what I can find is PR news releases. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*keep with 5 released movies most in lead roles , my opinion is the subject is notable. The page does need editing . 2405:204:94:4D2A:0:0:D35:C0A4 (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC). Blocked. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs editing . There are citations on the web, which haven’t been added in the references , need to be added . 5 released movies as main actress , also produced 1 Gujarati movie 2g apartments. 103.178.145.48 (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC) — 103.178.145.48 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]

This article does require a lot of clean-up, but the page under this name should stay, considering the subject does have a decent number of citations/ references 103.178.145.20 (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC).— 103.178.145.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep 103.178.145.20 (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC). — 103.178.145.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~ the subject went by another screen name - Kahkkashan Aryan previously. News & articles on Google under that name too . 5 released movies . Physician, published in US medical journals. The article does require a tremendous amount of clean-up , but the subject, in my humble opinion, is notable 103.178.145.20 (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC) — 103.178.145.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Struck duplicate !vote, since the same IP has already voted above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThere are in depth articles in Times of India & also Indian Express , along with name citation as physician author in Cureus & Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives- PubMed Central - National Library of Mesicine , US . I would humbly vote for this article’s subject for notability . 103.178.145.48 (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC) — 103.178.145.48 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with Oaktree b's assessment of the sources. The IP editor (there appears to be just the one) appears to be considering articles written fully in first-person, from the subject's perspective, like this one [32], to be independent coverage, which is incorrect. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://m.timesofindia.com/city/ahmedabad/bole-to-mbbs-karne-ka-hai/articleshow/664693.cms

Third person citation for having topped the board exams

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6586086/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6692095/

The above 2 are US Medical journals , with the subject (as author) being mentioned as affiliated with Drexel University College of Medicine .

times of India is the most read newspaper in India , and the journalists are reputed for fact-checking before publishing -

https://m.timesofindia.com/entertainment/telugu/movies/news/Kadambari-Jethwani-set-for-Tollywood-debut/articleshow/45751097.cms

https://m.timesofindia.com/entertainment/kannada/movies/news/I-was-apprehensive-about-working-with-two-other-girls/articleshow/49600603.cms

the subject went by a different name Kahkkashan Aryan previously .

lead actor in a Hindi , a Telugu , a Kannada movie , notable role in a Malayalam movie

also produced a Gujarati movie 2g apartments

the article has issues , needs proper referencing , but there is ample coverage on this subject on the internet , hence I find the subject notable .

third person citation for lead actress credit https://web.archive.org/web/20170126180254/http://m.indiaglitz.com/saran-is-back-hindi-news-91167.html 2409:40C0:103F:E266:A997:1825:E311:E2A0 (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already in 2 more languages, other than English . Deletion should be considered a waste . 2409:40C0:103F:E266:A997:1825:E311:E2A0 (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All your comments here demonstrate that you do not understand the meaning of independent coverage, which is a necessary element of establishing notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Rosguill and Oaktree b's assessment above, there is not sufficient high-quality independent SIGCOV coverage in RS that would give GNG. The refs presented by the IPs (or the one IP socking) are not suitable for GNG. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit conflict), as I see no evidence that this individual meets GNG or NACTOR, and no other criterion credibly applies: there are also serious promotion and BLP concerns. The medical publications don't count toward anything, as they are not independent. All the coverage in news sources is either non-substantive or non-independent. Many of the "keep" opinions are not based in policy, and should be discounted by the closer. I attempted to clean up the unsourced puffery, but gave it up as a lost cause; even if this person were notable, I would advocate for WP:TNT, as instead of a well-sourced stub, we have badly sourced puff-piece that violates BLP even if the content is all favorable. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject deserves the stub ! 2409:40C0:103F:E266:A997:1825:E311:E2A0 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
like the stub in the 2 languages other than English .

Deletion would be extreme & unwarranted . 2409:40C0:103F:E266:A997:1825:E311:E2A0 (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should also be WP:SALTed. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by WP:TOI: there is consensus that Times of India accepts money in exchange for positive coverage. The "newsroompost" article comes from a blog. The newindianexpress, indiaglitz article have a one sentence mention of her acting/modeling career. I could not find other media coverage of her. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Weinberger[edit]

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

I do not think the independent notice of this character rises to the level of enough coverage to pass WP:ONEEVENT, for example. Getting patents isn't a key to notability. Being part of parapsychology claims in the 1970s seems not a strong attestation of notability either. Perhaps we can briefly mention him in Stanley Krippner, but I'm even skeptical of that. jps (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Paranormal. jps (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Tirishan (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Victoria[edit]

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

Relies on a permanently dead link as source. Found no significant coverage of the subject. Previously deprod with this article, which counts more as trivial mention. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Kosovo, and Sweden. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here is a link to the archive for the dead link: https://web.archive.org/web/20141029064632/http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/aktuellt/2010/06/nya-boendelosningar-nar-camp-victoria-laggs-ner/ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All I'm finding in Finnish is a few extremely short (think single paragraph) news articles about the death of a Swedish peacekeeper in an explosion of an ammunition storage. Leaning delete unless better sourcing is found, but I'll wait a bit before !voting as I don't really have access to any Swedish language sources. -Ljleppan (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Swedish media archive w:sv:Mediearkivet contains a number of articles on Camp Victoria, typically in the form of depicting someone's visit or work there. I've added articles from Expressen, Hallands Nyheter, sv:Karlskoga Tidning, sv:Södra Dalarnes Tidning and sv:Värnpliktsnytt. I couldn't find any of the articles easily accessible online, but anyone with access to Mediearkivet (students and staff at Swedish universities, Wikipedians with access through Wikimedia Sweden) can read them. None of the articles are amazing (they tend to be 500–800 words long, and the camp itself shares the attention with the lives of the people being depicted), but I'm convinced this can be kept. /Julle (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nom. Enough sources found. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:08, 30 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 23:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maryann Krieglstein[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. Likely WP:VANITY page. jps (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Social science. jps (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Illinois. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not voting since this is my mother. I've had my COI announced on the top of my user page for over a decade. I haven't edited this page since 2016 and have no plans of violating COI and editing ever again. This article went through peer review at Articles for Creation, as noted on the talk page. I did not move it to the main space. Finally, are Maryann's google scholar results. Her seminal research has been cited 60 times. Her co-authorship has been cited 128. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or draftify. Sadly, I don't think WP:PROF or WP:GNG is met. Awards and recognition are very local. Perhaps, if no better sources are found (my BEFORE did not help), we can draftify it rather than delete it. Sources may appear, eventually, and restoring a userpace draft is easier than going through a REFUND. And I presume User:Dkriegls would not mind hosting this article in their userspace for indefinite time? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent a good amount of time on Wikipedia trying to save/add biographies of female scientists and artists. Happy to add my mom to the list (link). I'd be grateful if you could provide some guidance on what you think would improve the article. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but her presence might be maintained on WP if one could use her written materials in articles such as Violence against women. That would be more likely to lead people to her work than an article under her name, IMO. Lamona (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be part of a WALL of the creator's parents (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Krieglstein and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transcendental perspectivism). Unfortunately, the scholarly work of this person (a few journal articles with a grand total citation count of around 130) and the academic awards (mostly internal from her community college) fall very far short of typical PROF criteria. 128.252.154.2 (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Negros Trade Fair[edit]

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

I PRODed this as a non notable trade fair after finding no in depth coverage in RIS, but apparently the PROD was objected to, so bringing to AfD. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Philippines. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Created 2012 and never sourced, none of it. Very little content and looks like it was meant to be a list but nothing happened. — Maile (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations do not support the user's "speedy" stance. Timothytyy (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Oppose: neither the nominator, nor anyone else, have provided assurances that a reasonable search has been made for additional sources per WP:BEFORE

I'm willing to change my vote to delete if assurances are provided that those searches were made Jack4576 (talk) 08:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a keep voter, have you found any sources? LibStar (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I've amended my vote to an oppose of this possible misapplication of WP policy, rather than a keep which would be an endorsement of this article's content Jack4576 (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

not sure what assurance you’d be looking for, but I did say in my nomination that I couldn’t find any coverage in reliable independent sources (RIS). To be more specific I meant online and in English. It is possible that there are offline sources or sources in Tagalog or Cebuano, so that’s what we’re here to determine. Mccapra (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my esteemed compatriot Mccapra, your words are as clear as the first light of dawn. You have sought for truth, yet within the constraints of the digital domain and the English language. Such efforts are indeed commendable, yet do they not leave us wondering if more could be found elsewhere?

In acknowledging the potential for offline sources or those in the rich tapestry of Tagalog or Cebuano, you have inadvertently made my case. It is this very possibility that fuels my argument for a 'keep' vote. For should we not delve a little further, cast our nets a bit wider in the vast sea of knowledge before we make the irrevocable decision to delete? By no means do I propose a herculean task, but merely an expanded consideration, to ensure we do not unwittingly discard a gem amidst the pebbles.

Jack4576 (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there might be, yes, or there might not. The article has been tagged with WikiProject Tambayan Philippines for more than a decade but no sources have been forthcoming. The article creator asked for time to add sources but then didn’t add any. The deletion discussion has of course also been notified to the Philippines WikiProject so editors familiar with those languages can weigh in if they find anything. So there are plenty of opportunities for people who can find sources to do so. Mccapra (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither the nominator or the speedy delete voter have responded in terms of online SIGCOV. Also nom please explain on what is RIS. Timothytyy (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RIS? Valereee (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

reliable, independent sources? --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

apologies yes RIS reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry...I had missed that in the nom or I would have connected the two. :) Valereee (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Valereee, Mccapra, Timothytyy, Jack4576, and LibStar: - General related note to this nomination. This list was created in 2012. Manila F.A.M.E. International is a trade show, un-sourced and also created in 2008, and has images. Too bad neither of these were sourced, but I don't know how to remedy any of this myself. — Maile (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Maile66. There do appear to be sources, I've added, haven't done a thorough assessment but I'm leaning Keep. Oldest provincial trade fair is a plausible claim to notability. If it survives I think we should probably just strip out the unsourced detail. Much of the prose looks like it might be in one of the sources. Valereee (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some sources have been added; relisting to allow discussion of these.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Valereee has added some sources that, while not overwhelming, I believe that this slips over the GNG line. That said, much of the article is un-sourced (e.g. the list of awards) and it would be best to remove those unless a source is found. (Anything removed can be added later when there are sources.) Lamona (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources added by Valereee to the article. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:57, 3 June 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 23:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Krieglstein[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:PROF. Likely a WP:VANITY page. jps (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and Psychology. jps (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Czech Republic, Germany, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - not widely cited in scholar, doesn't seem to meet any other requirements of WP:PROF - car chasm (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be part of a WALL of the creator's parents (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryann Krieglstein and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transcendental perspectivism). There are only a handful of citations to this person's scholarly work and nothing else that really goes toward satisfying PROF. 128.252.154.2 (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not voting since this is my father. I've had my COI announced on the top of my user page for over a decade. I haven't edited this page since 2015 and have no plans of violating COI and editing ever again. Some citations in this article are in need of some wayback machine links. I top-loaded the relevant WP:PROF citations in the lead since that is what I thought one did back then. My work on this article was before I knew about Articles for Creation and that peer-review process for COI. I have since used that process successfully. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:55, 29 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 23:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendental perspectivism[edit]

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

Looks to be complete WP:VANITY. I see essentially no attestation to third-party independent notice. jps (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Religion, and Psychology. jps (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No secondary sources in the article and practically nothing turns up on Google Scholar (a few papers use the same phrase but in a completely unrelated sense). No indication that this is an idea which has made any significant impact on scholarship, and there are no independent sources with which we could write an encyclopedia article about this topic. WJ94 (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notabillity. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 03:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(until further notice). It does seem there is a COI-issue, as noted at the talk page of the article. But that is not reason to delete it. Also, lack of citations in the article, doesnt translate to lack of citations in general. There is some literature on "Transcendental perspectivism" [33]. I am open to discussion though. Cinadon36 18:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the GScholar results myself and most of what comes up is either passing mentions, authored by Krieglstein himself, or about a completely different topic. Could you link to the specific sources which you think provide significant coverage? WJ94 (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be part of a WALL of the creator's parents (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Krieglstein and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryann Krieglstein). I would add to the above TP is mentioned only in passing in a handful of books (GBooks). Krieglstein mentiones TP in his own papers, but these are barely cited. It seems this idea was never taken up by others, nor did it make any impact. 128.252.154.2 (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Artem.G (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As written, it verges on vanispamcruftisement, and there's nothing we can do to improve it in a policy-compliant way. I agree with WJ94's evaluation of the literature. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no WP:SIGCOV + sources are from the philosopher's books (WP:PRIMARY) Tirishan (talk) 21:58, 4 June 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 23:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aurangabad High Madrasha[edit]

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

Empty sections, uncited, seemingly random high school in West Bengal, India. A cursory Google search gives doesn't show anything noteworthy. Lindsey40186 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and West Bengal. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. The Bengali version of this article only has primary sources. LibStar (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I am unable to find enough independent sources with WP:SIGCOV to establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile file management[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Article has unreliable sources and reads more like an advertisement than an article. Dawnbails (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Dawnbails (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I don't see how is it ads, but WP is not a manual, and the subject is not notable for an encyclopedia. Artem.G (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I wrote that wrong; the citations read more like an advertisement, linking to GroupLogic and some unknown and now-defunct website. Dawnbails (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Full with technical inaccuracies and written quite poorly. No substantial sources either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 5 June 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 23:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MobilEcho[edit]

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

Article has unreliable sources, product itself has barely any sources that pass WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Dawnbails (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Dawnbails (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the source online were promotional or third party. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 21:42, 31 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 23:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MassTransit Enterprise[edit]

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

No reliable sources, article has one citation and a list of references that fail WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Page creator's only contributions are to products by this specific company. Dawnbails (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Dawnbails (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No usable secondary sources found on Google. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 15:57, 31 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 23:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acronis Files Connect[edit]

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

Poor article sources; two of which belong directly to the company that created the software. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT.

I'll add too that the creator of the article's contributions relate specifically to this company. Dawnbails (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Dawnbails (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GNG is not met. Feels like advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's not the current state that matters. It's inability to find almost anything to cite. -- Yae4 (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indeed. Looked for sources on the web and in magazines, and it's not notable. DFlhb (talk) 04:40, 5 June 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. I double checked the cited sources for the presence of significant coverage, as this aspect was not directly addressed in the discussion, and found the sourcing to be consistent with the views expressed by keep !voters. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Halstensen[edit]

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

Not notable journalist; no reliable sources about Ingrid NortonAngo (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I believe it meets the general notability guideline, it has enough references for a rather short article, and looking up Ingrid Halstensen shows multiple results in both English and Norwegian. The article is in 3 languages. I encourage you to use the find sources tool on this article, you'll plenty of references that show the subject is notable. Dylan | ✉ | ✓ 15:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Speedy Keep, about the sources being reliable,

VG (Verdens Gang), one of the references used is the most-read online newspaper in Norway.^[1]
Aftenposten, another reference used, is Norway's largest printed newspaper.^[2]
Nettavisen is a news source with no reliability issues. It is one of Norway's most popular news websites.
TV 2 (Norwegian TV channel) is the news source that she works for.

Dylan | ✉ | ✓ 16:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Sports, and Norway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the fact that most of the sources are not in English does not justify deleting the article. WP:GLOBAL. DCsansei (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://medienorge.uib.no/statistikk/medium/avis/253
^ https://www.statista.com/statistics/633186/ranking-of-printed-newspapers-in-norway-by-circulation/

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bielik (journalist)[edit]

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

The article doesn't provide evidence of significant coverage of Peter Bielik in reliable, independent sources. No prominent awards or achievements BoraVoro (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:08, 29 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 14:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Prior[edit]

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

This footballer article was created under the old NFOOTY guidelines. He played 8 minutes in the Scottish Championship and spent some time on loan but he has not had a club for five years and appears to have fallen out of football.

I can't see anything in the way of substantial coverage to show the subject meets GNG, only routine announcements and stuff from his club. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and Scotland. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominators assessment, doesn't cut it. Fails BASIC/GNG. Govvy (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to satisfy the relevant notability criteria of GNG or BASIC. The references in the article are a single source, not independent of the subject. The only other mentions I've found are on Facebook and database listings. Rupples (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustan Antibiotics School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. The only source provided is its own website. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It lacks significant sources. Only a mention in the Outlook Hindi article. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Yasal Shahid (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: did your search for sources include local print and language sources? Jack4576 (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked over reliable sources not local unreliable sources. Thanks Yasal Shahid (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep this actually seems like a mildly notable school, I found a couple sources with 1–2 paragraphs of mentions (1, 2, 3). Shastri and Nehru inaugurating the school building seems very notable and likely to have been reported on in the contemporary press, but any news from those days would have to be checked manually through archives. AryKun (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yasal Shahid and @LibStar, just wondering whether you've seen this. AryKun (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AryKun Adding these sources in article will be more good. Yasal Shahid (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added and expanded the article. AryKun (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I suspect that if someone fluent in the local language did a search, there would be significant coverage of this school. In the meantime, seems that its existence has been verified by news coverage (so the nomination stating that its only source is its website is no longer true) and I'd want to confirm that editors fluent in the appropriate language have done an exhaustive search. In the meantime, I'd hate to perpetrate systemic bias on Wikipedia (see: WP:GLOBAL) DCsansei (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a pretty exhaustive search; the only sources with SIGCOV are the ones I've currently added to the article. It's just about enough to scrape past GNG imo, since it's three sources with a couple paragraphs of coverage each. There might be older news articles from when it was founded, but newspaper archives haven't been digitized yet in India, so finding though is pretty much impossible. AryKun (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

so the nomination stating that its only source is its website is no longer true I said the only source provided was its website, not the only source in existence. In any case, your !vote is WP:MUSTBESOURCES. The article has been deleted sorted for the state of Maharashtra, so anyone who knows the local language can see this. LibStar (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar, the argument isn't just MUSTBESOURCES, there are now actually sources provided and added to the article. There are two news articles entirely about the school and one with two paragraphs of coverage. This is probably enough to clear GNG. AryKun (talk) 11:36, 30 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 03:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency English School[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:NSCHOOL. 2 provided sources are non reliable: its own website and Facebook. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: has the nominator WP:BEFORE? Jack4576 (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would read the sentence No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. as a BEFORE finding. AllyD (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Schools, and Maharashtra. AllyD (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, and no reliable sources can be found in the article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSCHOOL NortonAngo (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. Promotional with primary sources. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:08, 29 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. Thoughtful discussion, it appears this should be revisited in time. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IWar[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE resulted in a finding of two books named after the term:

The Rise of IWAR: Identity, Information and the Individualization of Modern Warfare
IWar: War and Peace in the Information Age

I cannot access the first book, but the latter touches on the topic only slightly, mentioning how iWar is about waging information warfare against various state regimes.

As the article is about a term used by NATO, there is little potential for expansion, unless it is transformed into an article about "Internet warfare" to cover a broader topic in general. –Vipz (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. –Vipz (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term is, as you say, used by NATO – and for that reason is likely to gain wider use for what is a recent real-world phenomenon (starting 2008), though a slightly older concept; you may recall published concerns that US power facilities were at risk of such attacks, and therefore were being hardened against them. Likewise, after the 2016 US election, there was discussion of reprisals against Russia for its interference, which ended up being sanctions but might have included the US targeting Russian computer systems. That too might have been iWar, depending on the nature of the systems and attacks. So the topic could become of greater practical (less abstract) public concern at any time. – .Raven ^.talk 10:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the two books you mention to the "Further reading" list, using 'cite book' templates, so that anyone who wants to cite them can cut-and-paste those into their refs. The original 2015 publication of "The Rise of iWar" still has no Google Books preview, but this 2018 Skyhorse reprint has some limited preview. – .Raven ^.talk 10:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that books published by the US War College & S&S on the topic exist seems to show some level of notability but I do think that a larger article on internet warfare incorporating this one might be more sensible. DCsansei (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perplexing. I would have thought Internet war would have existed, but it doesn't. iWar is in the title of two books, but beyond those books, it really hasn't caught on as a "term" from my searches. The broader topic is undoubtedly notable and NATO seems to have given birth to "iWar", so perhaps we hold this for now in the expectation that will be a redirect to Internet war in the future (unless the term "iWar" catches on in the meantime). Although I was confused as to whether the "i" was for "Internet war" or Information war? Aszx5000 (talk) 18:17, 6 June 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 delete 1 June 2023 by Justlettersandnumbers: G5 Created by a banned or blocked user (Symon Sadik) in violation of ban or block. (non-admin closure) Worldbruce (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)‎.[reply]

Ashna Habib Bhabna[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Sources cited are interviews, celeb gossip, churnalism, and passing mentions, and a search only finds more of the same as well as the usual social media etc. Was previously draftified, but moved straight back to main space without any improvement, so here we are at AfD. Fails WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Bangladesh. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interviews and the like, appears to be a painter also with the same name. Nothing for RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 29 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 14:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Moran[edit]

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

Fails GNG and SNG (NBAD). No coverage found online. Timothytyy (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and Wales. Timothytyy (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sigcov 1. Stvbastian (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An interview is a primary source. Routine Google search does not bring up a source meeting WP:GNG, therefore delete.
Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not a primary source. The article provide an author own thinking based on primary sources, and written through editor edits. Stvbastian (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does contain a lot of non-quote material, but it also fails independence because it is published by the Badminton Wales and material from governing sports orgs is explicitly rejected from counting toward notability. JoelleJay (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks sufficient coverage to pass notability guidelines. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. The above mentioned source is from the National Governing Body for Badminton in Wales and thus is not independent of the subject Alvaldi (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything better than the Badminton Wales source already discussed above Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few news references to the page. I am not prepared to argue that this coverage is sufficiently notable, but I wanted to point out that there is at least some independent coverage outside the governing sports organization. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the last-minute addition of references.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Cardiffian is a few paragraphs about a tournament, with one line mentioning her. The Cuban site is the same. Other source is trivial coverage. Nothing found for notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources providing SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. DreamRimmer (talk) 14:11, 30 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 04:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Friedrich Gassner[edit]

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

Nothing to suggest notabilty. TheLongTone (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Austria. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 14:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:44, 29 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 14:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sherbaz Pathan[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:NPOL, elected from a local area. Yasal Shahid (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, Politics, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Yasal Shahid (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete District President of Chandpur, Bijnor or a Member of the Municipal council Chandpur, Bijnor is not a role that confers notability. DreamRimmer (talk) 14:14, 30 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 04:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simha Bhagavathula[edit]

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

Not notable singer, not sourced enough for passing notability threshold BoraVoro (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 2001:4455:636:D900:94A8:7FBB:249D:9ECA (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Wonderland (franchise)[edit]

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

The references are all primary, and there is no provided evidence that this is a notable franchise. The individual releases are notable, sure, but the franchise as a whole would appear to not be. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Disney. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — This seems like a pretty clear case of WP:NEXIST. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide proof of these sources existing? QuicoleJR (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@InfiniteNexus: Please provide the sources that you say exist. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for what? I brought up NEXIST because The references are all primary is the first sentence of your nomination. Each of the "main" articles on the franchise article has plenty of reliable secondary sources, which can easily be imported into this article, thus addressing the sourcing concern. Per WP:FILMSERIES, as long as a film series or franchise comprises three installments, provided that all of those installments demonstrate notability and there are sources calling the franchise a franchise, an article may be created. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are there reliable sources calling it a franchise? If so, can you provide them? QuicoleJR (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. New York Times, Vanity Fair, Forbes, Business Insider, IndieWire, /Film, Mashable, Screen Rant, ... InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG per the sources provided by InfiniteNexus. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:03, 30 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 14:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of religious ideas in science fiction[edit]

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

WP:OR (just like the image used in lead...), poorly sourced, fails WP:NLIST. Similar problems are found in List of religious ideas in fantasy fiction (now also at AfD) and List of fictional religions (soon). If we need examples of how messy this is - well, the scope includes every science fiction book in which the concepts of Jesus, pope, Christianity, etc. are mentioned, mixed with some sci-fi religious concepts, and all with works that are borderline sci-fi at best (such as alternate history works, etc.). This is just an extreme case of WP:NOTTVTROPES. The only thing that might be rescuable here are one-two referenced sentences from the lead that could be used to write a proper prose article on religion in science fiction (something I might consider doing in the future). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Religion, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Great idea for a prose article, terrible idea for a list. I cannot see a reasonable way of constructing a list of "religious ideas" in any kind of fiction while abiding by Wikipedia's WP:Core content policies. TompaDompa (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is obviously possible to write a good prose article on the topic. I would love to see this re-worked into a proper encyclopedic article. /Julle (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly it's possible to write a proper prose article on this topic—that source is far from the only useful one for the purpose. This list is however no foundation to build that upon, needing as it does both entirely new content and a new title. Deleting this and separately creating a proper prose article seems a lot more rational. TompaDompa (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa @Julle I started something at Fictional religion (b/c wikidata, and recently pl wiki has stubbed an article on this, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17364638 ). Although other framings such as even broader religion in fiction would be valid too, as, of course, more narrow treatments (religion in science fiction, religion in fantasy fiction). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what even is the point of this article? In particular what is the scope supposed to be? WP:TNT this and write an article on religion in science fiction, or religion X and science fiction. Dronebogus (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is noteworthy, any current issues with format shouldn't mean article is deleted. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would that the format were the only (or even main) issue. The core issue with this article is the scope, the format mainly serves to obfuscate that. If we tried to rewrite this in a prose format, the WP:OR nature of the content would be unmistakable. No amount of tweaking the format can turn improperly assembled content into policy-compliant content. TompaDompa (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion of WP:ITSNOTABLE is not the best argument. Perhaps you could elaborate? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Religion is a theme in many science fiction stories, it's too broad for a stand-alone list like this. I think a non-list article on religion and science fiction could be created though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost completely comprised of WP:OR and unclear scope. There are probably sources out there that discuss the topic of the intersection of religious themes and science fiction that could serve as the basis for a decent prose article, but this list is just a mostly unsourced assortment of an unfeasibly broad range of topics that are often times only vaguely related. Rorshacma (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Guilty Gear characters. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I-No[edit]

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

Article mostly relies on passing mentions and rankings/listicles. WP:BEFORE shows zero WP:SIGCOV. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 12:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Guilty Gear characters. Reception's entirely top-10 lists, there is a serious dearth of significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there really not enough on I-No? I know (no pun intended) Guilty Gear is a niche franchise and everything, but she's one of those characters known for their sex appeal, much like Ivy from Soulcalibur and Morrigan from Darkstalkers. Anyway, here is one source, but its from Bounding Into Comics, a site whose reliability is questionable at best. Though I can't access the whole thing, this book seems to talk about her too. Maybe they can be used if, by chance, someone finds enough coverage to keep the article, or revive it in the future? MoonJet (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, BIC is a hard no. They've got a pretty extreme POV that I feel affects their ability to provide verifiable content. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that hard no and add a hell no to Bounding.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Third that per my below-mentioned “boobs aren’t notable” comment and also because BiC is a reactionary garbage site promoting non-controversies as news. Dronebogus (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve always had some skepticism about boobs making a character notable. Drooling over a character’s MAJOR HAWTNESS is not “critical analysis”. Dronebogus (talk) 10:58, 31 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. !voters pointed out that the subject is notable per WP:NSPECIES and that being short isn’t a reason to delete an article. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hypoxylon tinctor[edit]

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

Article is too short and unrefrenced. Should we just merge it to Hypoxylon? Vitaium (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, and Organisms. Vitaium (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. It exists and is a referenced formally described species, which is all the bar that is needed for species notability. It would not have taken long to add references that show up pretty quickly either.[34][35] KoA (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Species Outcomes is a common outcome, not policy. Per WP:NOPAGE, a separate page is not needed just because it's a species and the genus article can cover this content perfectly well. Reywas92^Talk 03:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Species outcome is practically always the outcome because of community norms, not just a common outcome. Last time this came up, I don't think anyone could provide an example where a legitimately described species was not kept. Comments like that are typically dismissed as wikilawyering or just unfamiliarity with the topic as species are generally treated as inherently notable by the community. The only time species are "homed" at the genus level is monotypic genera (see WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA for other examples). KoA (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what. I still think it's BS that people think we need hundreds of thousands of individual species articles when they can be adequately covered in the genus articles. [36] says multiple species in this genus can cause Hypoxylon canker and I believe it's better to describe them together if there is very little content specific to this species. Reywas92^Talk 13:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSPECIES. It is a species recognised by all the major resources (Kew Botanical Gardens, International Mycological Association, etc) and the stub has potential for expansion because of its role in tree disease. While WP:NSPECIES is not Wikipedia policy and a guarantee of WP:GNG, it has reliably being backed up in deletion discussions over the years where well established species nearly always pass. There maybe a case for some species to be treated in a genus article, but this should be decided on a case by case basis. Even if that is the approach chosen the species name should be a redirect. The proper forum for such discussions are the talk pages. — Jts1882 | talk 07:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Too short" is not a valid reason for deletion. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSPECIES: the article seems to be notable despite how short it is and sources on the Internet can be used to expand the article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of the problem here is that the article is at the wrong name: the mycological community seems to have accepted this species as Camillea tinctor for quite some time. Some casual searching in Google Scholar suggests that there's material available for a specialist to expand the article, including the differences between C. tinctor and more recently described Asian species of Camillea and additional host species. Choess (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I aslo support a page move for this article. I made the point on the project page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fungi#Hypoxylon_tinctor. The move was proposed in 1989 and seems to be accepted by major resources. — Jts1882 | talk 10:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that move can be made pretty uncontroversially after this closes. The genus had some interesting changes where it was later resurrected, but as far as I can see, that doesn't change the current state of it actually being Camillea tinctor now. KoA (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPECIES and no longer unrefrenced either. KylieTastic (talk) 15:35, 4 June 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 Vilémov (Děčín District)#Transport. RL0919 (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vilémov u Šluknova railway station[edit]

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

Per WP:NTRAINSTATION; fails WP:GNG. It's not even a building, just a stop on request. The timetable is not a sufficient reference and there are no others. FromCzech (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vilémov (Děčín District) in a "transportation" section, seems pretty straightforward. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The station building is just an unstaffed shelter. I would guess, though, that when the line opened in 1904, there was a bigger building with at least one employee and possibly several. Perhaps the original building was damaged by fire or military action, or perhaps the railway company just let the building deteriorate. Even if a station is only a shelter or a signpost, there's a good chance that it was once a staffed building. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's pure speculation and unhelpful. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's speculation, and that's why I didn't !vote keep at this point. I was pointing out a possible path of research for someone with access to offline or paywalled sources. The topic of a station covers not only its present configuration but how it existed in the past. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vilémov (Děčín District) - Looking on Google Earth the shelter doesn't appear to have existed in 2000 so unless the "station" was at a different location then the shelter is new, Anyway fails GNG (can't find anything under it's Czech name), sources in the article aren't reliable sources - just a timetable and what seems to be personal blogs). –Davey2010^Talk 17:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vilémov (Děčín District)#Transport. Kudos to Eastmain for putting in the sources. The station apparently dates back to 1904 when the line was constructed and was called Wölmsdorf, as was the village. I've checked what's on German Wikipedia and didn't find a separate article for the station. It is noted as a stopping point on the Rumburk-Sebnitz railway line. The modern shelter looks to have replaced a bigger structure sometime between 2012 and 2019 per Google Streetview. Haven't found sources sufficient to establish notability for the station therefore as an alternative to deletion suggest merging to the village the station serves. An official railway timetable helps prove the station exists but doesn't satisfy GNG. Rupples (talk) 00:55, 5 June 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 Dolní Poustevna#Transport. The need for a standalone page has not been established, and the redirect is a logical one. The option to merge exists, and if WP:SIGCOV is found, this discussion does not preclude recreation. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Horní Poustevna railway station[edit]

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

Per WP:NTRAINSTATION; fails WP:GNG. It's not even a building, just a stop on request. The timetable is not a sufficient reference and there are no others. FromCzech (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The station is a real building. I added a photo by Palickap (talk · contribs · count) from Commons. If the building dates back to the opening of the railway line (1904), then more references ought to be available. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I confused it with the shelter in Vilémov (it is also just a stop on request). But even so, this is not the reason for keep, if it is not notable. It is definitely not a protected cultural monument. If the building was from 1904, it would not be exceptional by Czech standards anyway. FromCzech (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. It seems likely that this can be expanded, given that most other similar stations can be/have been, but if it can't then it should be merged to the article about the line and/or the locality. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NTRAINSTATION says: "Train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations." Can you be more specific why this particular station deserves its own page? The information about the line is already included in the location's page. FromCzech (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what I actually wrote you will see that your question is not relevant. If all the content is already is both applicable places then there should be a redirect to it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Few things to note; A) It being a building is not a valid reason to keep - A school is a building but they end up at AFD if found to be non-notable, same goes for any building.

B) You can't say "Coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG" without providing actual sources to back that claim up (1 cite to a timetable is not sufficient coverage!).

This exists which only tells us it exists and I believe what services call there - Google News has 0 results so this quite obviously fails GNG. Horní Poustevna doesn't exist but Ústí nad Labem Region does - Whilst I do want to keep it I don't see the point in it being merged to Ústí nad Labem Region as it's kind of irrelevant. Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 18:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement with you. The probable reason the village of Horni Poustevna doesn't have an article is because its administratively considered to be part of Dolní Poustevna. Don't think a merge is appropriate as it may unbalance that article but would it be in order to redirect this to Dolní Poustevna#Transport as Horni Poustevna is already mentioned under the Transport heading there? Rupples (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dolní Poustevna#Transport (where the station is already mentioned) retaining article history or possibly merge, if as seems likely notability cannot be established. This is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vilémov u Šluknova railway station which resulted in a merge to the locality the station serves. The problem here is that a page for the locality of Horni Poustevna hasn't been created on English Wikipedia (does have a page on Czech Wikipedia). Rupples (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC) (edited to include possibility of merge Rupples (talk) 15:38, 6 June 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) WJ94 (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dolní Poustevna railway station[edit]

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

Per WP:NTRAINSTATION; fails WP:GNG. An ordinary and unremarkable building. The timetable is not a sufficient reference and there are no others. FromCzech (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The station building was bigger than normal for a community this size because it was a border station with space for customs officials (originally Austria-Hungary, later Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic). It has a long history (opened 1904). The article can be expanded with information from the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia at de:Bahnhof Dolní Poustevna, including this book reference: * Johannes Raddatz: Eisenbahn in der Sächsischen Schweiz, Band 4 Verlag Bernd Neddermeyer, Berlin 2012, ISBN 978-3-941712-20-1, S. 184–191 The Czech Wikipedia does not have a corresponding article on the station, but it does have articles on the community and the railway line. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Eastmain, a border station is highly likely to be notable. There is also a Czech book which seems to discuss the reconstruction and reopening of the line. [37] – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the above sources, there are another 2 online news articles describing the sale of the station building:

Vanžura, Alexandr (2015-03-03). "Dolní Poustevna koupí obří vlakové nádraží. Nechce, aby v něm vznikla ubytovna". Děčínský deník (in Czech). Retrieved 2023-05-29. - This article also contains a backgrounder to the historical usage of the station building
Klaubenschalk, Alice (2018-02-05). "Vlakové nádraží v Dolní Poustevně je na prodej, železnici se už nehodí". iDNES.cz (in Czech). Retrieved 2023-05-29.

Jumpytoo Talk 19:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided, Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as that this meets the WP:GNG. WP:SNOW also applies! gidonb (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs improvement but looks like the sources exist to pass WP:GNG KylieTastic (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hopefully the article will be expanded with material from German Wikipedia and other sources noted in this AfD. References found look sufficient to achieve notability under the GNG. Rupples (talk) 01:15, 5 June 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 Battle of Haktang-ni. ✗plicit 11:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Arrow (Korea)[edit]

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

I created this article long ago and it is essentially a WP:CF of the Battle of Haktang-ni. I think it can be safely merged into it without loss of content. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need to delete. Let's merge into Battle of Haktang-ni.Footwiks (talk) Footwiks (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Haktang-ni considering that this is a WP:CF and that article has relevant information. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Haktang-ni. Agree, after review, that should be no problem and a reasonable solution. Kierzek (talk) 13:59, 2 June 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 11:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of American Thomas & Friends video releases[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Practically unsourced. No sources verify home releases are actually notable, especially those which are specific to the American region Ajf773 (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Ajf773 (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indiscriminate trivial niche information Dronebogus (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator.Magical Golden Whip (talk) 01:00, 2 June 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. Star Mississippi 15:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don Mansale[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: has the nominator fulfilled WP:BEFORE? Jack4576 (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are a lot of sources for this one on the Vaunatu Daily Post, but they are in Bismali.--IdiotSavant (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Clearly was significant figure and topic of interest in Vanuatu football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:52, 31 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 Caixin. ✗plicit 11:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Lihui[edit]

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

Advertisement. No third-party indication of notability outside of Caixin; possible redirect there? – MrGnocci (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect makes most sense. Deleting is also reasonable. Pichpich (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Caixin (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources about Zhang Lihui (simplified Chinese: 张立晖; traditional Chinese: 張立暉). Preserving the history will allow the redirect to be easily undone if significant coverage is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 00:35, 4 June 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. Several arguments to keep refer only to the sources analyzed initially, and not the ones brought forth during the discussion; as such they are quite weak. As such I see this as an evenly divided discussion, and no consensus exists on this person's notability. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shubhada Varadkar[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO. Previously declined through AfC and moved to draft space after. There are 23 references on the page which I went through. There is only one that I can potentially see as going towards notability. The rest are non-independent, mentions, or unreliable. I did an evaluation on the talk page of all sources and pasting that below for those in the AfD discussion. CNMall41 (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reference review for notability:

1. Global Indian is a blog with very little traffic and no editorial oversight listed.

2. Nettv4U is a profile piece on a website that allows you to make your own profile.

3. Latestly, one sentence mention of an award that does not appear significant. Cannot vouch for the reliability of the website.

4. Nettv4U, same as #2 above.

5. Sanjeevani Life Beyond Cancer, this is a puff piece on what appears to be a non-profit organization website. Source not reliable.

6. Indian Council for Cultural Relations, I am not sure exactly what this list is but her name is on it with a link to YouTube. Mention and directory listing which is not significant.

7. Newsband, an interview so not independent. The publication states it is an English newspaper in New Bombay but there is no editorial oversight listed whatsoever. It also receives little traffic which makes me think this is a blog masquerading as a newspaper.

8. Ada2030, only mention is in the bio of the author (the subject's niece) as inspiration for writing the piece. No other information included.

9 AsianAge, a simply mention verifying she is the cousin to the subject in the article. Nothing significant.

10 Irish Times, this is a link to tags, not an article. I viewed the articles and found this which is a short piece talking about her cousin, nothing significant about her.

11 The Better India, this is more of a mention, Article is her mom who talks about Shubhada's dancing. Not independent and not significant.

12. DNA India, this one is about her grandmother with a single mention of Shubhada. Not significant coverage.

13. Mid-Day, this one is closer but still falls short of being significant. It talks about her autobiography and could be used as a source to support such, but does not have any weight for notability.

14. Her book which is an autobiography. Can be used as a primary source for certain things, but never to establish notability.

15. Scroll.in, this is the first reference where a case could potentially be made for notability. It is about a documentary based on her autobiography.

16. Sanjeevani Life Beyond Cancer, duplicate of #5 above.

17. Hindustan Times, brief mention of her being part of a festival. Passing mention and not significant.

18. NCPA Mumbai, commercial site, advertisement for a function, not significant.

19. Eoicaracas, another mention of a function. Mention and not significant.

20. The Times of India, this is a good article, but per WP:RSP, there is no real consensus for reliability and it is know for accepting payments for coverage.

21. Maharashtra, duplicate of #3 above.

22. & 23. No link but these are duplicates of #5 above.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete doesn't seem notable enough and could be merged with Leo Varadkar. I did manage to find her book listed on Amazon, this Economic Times article, also this website for a company which was founded by her. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Economic Times article is the same as ref 9, the Asian Age article. -- Whpq (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is the same parent company so likely a lot of mirror reporting. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should she be merged with Leo Varadkar? She is a Odissi dancer in her own right and a notable personality.https://www.thebetterindia.com/41535/shubhada-varadkar-odissi-dancer/ Kiran Java (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://scroll.in/reel/893106/in-documentary-peacock-plume-the-stirring-story-of-how-shubhada-varadkar-danced-around-cancer Kiran Java (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should NOT be deleted I do not agree that this page should be deleted because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about all knowledge and this biography adds to the body of knowledge. This article adheres to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy

She is an Odissi dancer preserving and propagating this art form
A documentary has been made on her work https://scroll.in/reel/893106/in-documentary-peacock-plume-the-stirring-story-of-how-shubhada-varadkar-danced-around-cancer Scroll.in
She has been awarded the Maharashtra Cultural Award for her work
She is an empanelled artist with ICCR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Council_for_Cultural_Relations
She has a senior fellowship from Ministry of Culture govt of India

I propose that other editors can contribute to strengthening the article. This article should not be deleted as it is a biography of a living person and none of the citations are libelous and hence they do not go against the Wikipedia policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiran Java (talk • contribs) 04:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly take you up on your proposal but unfortunately there are no references I could find that help show how she meets WP:ANYBIO. No amount of editing or reference adding would make her notable. It all comes down to the sources which simply do not exist. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found this dated 2019

https://www.dnaindia.com/just-before-monday/report-flamencodissi-2715298 Kiran Java (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and a off line source

"Pune Festival 95". The Times of India, Pune Plus. 7 September 1995.

Kiran Java (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiran Java: [38] was already brought up in CNMall41's comment above. I don't know about "Pune Festival 95". The Times of India, Pune Plus. 7 September 1995, I tried to find it in The Times of India archive, but I couldn't find it, do you have any link to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenBootWizard276 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question, how many sources are a requirement? Kiran Java (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no set number of sources, because the notability guidelines for people can vary by profession and accomplishments - for example, this source: In documentary ‘Peacock Plume’, the stirring story of how Shubhada Varadkar danced around cancer (Scroll.in) is very good - this is an in-depth review of a documentary about her, described as "a tribute to Varadkar’s resilience through her personal battles, including a failed marriage and cancer." Not only did someone make a documentary about her, but an independent and reliable source is providing secondary support for its noteworthiness. This source suggests further sources supporting notability based on her life and career (at minimum according to the WP:BASIC guideline) are available. Beccaynr (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has been discussion of this source previously and seems that it should be rarely used and only for certain things. I would highly doubt we get consensus to use it for notability purposes. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC - in addition to the 2018 Scroll.in review of the documentary about her, there is also a 2014 in-depth profile of her in the Mumbai Mirror: Dancing against disease, as well as reviews of her performances in The Hindu in 2017 and 2019, The Mumbai Mirror in 2017, and DNA India in 2013. The Better India also profiles her in 2016. There are also brief mentions of her that seem to be nontrivial support of her notability, e.g. the Hindustan Times reporting in 2020 "WFAC festival showcases 9 female artists, each being an icon in their own right including [...] Shubhada Varadkar (Odissi)". This article can be further developed with available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
via the Wikipedia Library, there are also reviews of her performances in "Delightful evening of classical ragas at Tribal museum" The Pioneer, 2019 ProQuest 2230122223 and "Classical dance forms come alive on stage" in the Hindustan Times, 2015 ProQuest 1655451986, as well as a briefer review of a work she choreographed in "The essence of Odissi" The Hindu, 2018 ProQuest 2019716953.

There is also a report on some of her collaborative work: "Flamencodissi: In a rare collaboration, the vigour and energy of Flamenco will meet the lyricality and grace of Odissi. Yogesh Pawar watched artistes from both styles rehearse together to explore their interface" DNA ProQuest 2174802486, and a 2021 report in The Free Press Journal about "noted Odissi dance guru and exponent Shubhada Varadkar who is presenting her film – a 30-minute docu-feature themed on 'Dance in times of corona,' along with German flamenco exponent Catarina Mora as a part of the Prayaag Dance Festival 2021." ("Prayaag 2021 to find out if classical dance works without a live audience" ProQuest 2500343002). There is also a report mentioning awards, including the "prestigious" Mahari Award 2011 of Orissa, that she "has been teaching, performing and conducting workshops in India and abroad for more than a decade" and that her mother "Manik Varadkar is a social activist" ("Doordarshan Sahyadri Prerna Puraskar 2014", indiantelevision.com, 2014 ProQuest 1520552910. Beccaynr (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note about Scroll.in above but we cannot use it to establish notability due to its reliability. Mentions, profiles, interviews, and breif announcements cannot be used either (at least for notability). The only reference that I see as possibly being used to establish notability would be the 2019 article in The Hindu. Assuming we all agree with that reference, that still leaves us way short of having significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 2018 RSN discussion linked above about Scroll.in between 4 editors does not appear to suggest a film review cannot be used or that the source cannot be relied upon for basic facts, such as the film being based on her autobiography. A 2020 RSN discussion about Scroll.in also has further opinions, including detailed and nuanced support for its reliability.

And these profiles of Varadkar offer significant coverage of her life and career, so they provide support for WP:GNG notability; the reviews of her performances are additional WP:SECONDARY support of her notability, per WP:BASIC. And while passing mentions would be trivial coverage, it seems nontrivial when she is described as e.g. "being an icon." From my view, the level of sustained and in-depth coverage supports her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your contention but disagree with your reading of the RSN discussion. There seems to be consensus to avoid it with a few saying it can be used for limited circumstance. Regarding SUSTAINED, she received most of her coverage during the same few years and there is nothing of note as of late. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep clearly passing wp:gng and actress notability. Shaikha Habiba (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaikha Habiba:, being this is only your 4th edit to Wikipedia, can you provide a more comprehensive statement about how she "clearly" passes actress notability. Keep in mind that deletion discussions are not a WP:VOTE.--CNMall41 (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: Shaikha has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Courcelles (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OP seems to apply same measurement in every case. Indian news media may be earning from movie industry, but I would doubt the same thing is true about classical dancers. Indian classical dancers may be getting some fame some money that too with difficulty to pay for their annual expanses. It would be surprising if Indian classical dancers would earn enough to pay Indian news media outlet. Again what money they would take from a cancer patient?

This seems like stretched stereotype applied to wrong segment. Seems like a borderline case of WP:CSB. Bookku (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Little more analysis in support of above comment: In 2014 Varadkar's age would be around 53 according to the date given in the article. Usually It's not time of career take off to pay for a news, much less likely when one is facing cancer. What I can see is inadvertently Appeal to probability taking shape. Bookku (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Beccaynr since seem to pass WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Bookku (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Detail WP policy analysis

WP:BASIC
..If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;.. People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below.
Policy seems clear article meets WP:BASIC is enough; WP:ANYBIO is an additional criteria and inconsequential in this case since article seems to meet WP:BASIC. Policy clearly mentions multiple independent sources can very well combined to demonstrate notability.
Coverage may have ups and downs but media coverage Minimum ten years from 2011 to 2021 is not sustained then what it is?
There is an article about her Guru Kelucharan Mohapatra who seems notable. And that what matters in Indian classical dance. And she has been awarded with a state level award that matters for the form of her classical dance.
Beccaynr seems to have provided good number of refs from Proquest. This Hindu Newspaper article even OP does not have any issue with this publication. This DNA 2013 news report mentions even editors name and is substantial coverage by all means. As earlier explained Scroll and Times of India are other wise add to substantial and would have been ok to OP. RSN strictures on both these news groups are mainly due to their coverage of Indian politics and high paying Indian movie industry; otherwise those are news papers of record. As explained in detail in the comment above these RSN stricture criteria can't be applied to classical dance, she is beyond age of career take of for publicity dependence, and a cancer patient unlikely source of payment for any publication or media house. What I can see is inadvertently fallacy of Appeal to probability and WP:CSB taking shape. Need to get out of usual stereotype at least in this case.
IMHO In this case if OP could have used Template:Notability and discussed at the article talk page first as part of WP:AFDBEFORE, it would have been better.

Just to be clear, you are saying that I did perform WP:BEFORE? As far as discussion, how much do you feel is needed? Based on User talk:Kiran Java you will see that both Onel5969 and Jamiebuba (pinging both to provide you with additional background) moved this back to draft prior to it being declined. User then moved it to the main space for a third time after I declined it in draft space. I then did a full review of references as shown above and performed a WP:BEFORE for any additional references (finding none that I feel could be used for notability). CNMall41 (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I just saw article talk page and missed on user talk page. User:Kiran Java certainly should have avoided haste and do more efforts to understand Wikipedia policies. I have had a feeling that whether we (community) could have had more discussion at the article talk page to revisit applicability of TOI and Scroll as an exception for Indian classical dances, since those are looking like border line cases.

I have already specified that outlook of disagreeing users on points of content is inadvertent, so pl. be assured no direct or indirect personal aspersions are implied. Bookku (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom's source analysis (which I also performed prior to moving to draft).Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It should be noted that not only should the nominators analysis of sources be analyzed, but sources subsequently brought forth should also be analyzed. Coverage over a few years would generally be considered SUSTAINED.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Beccaynr Jack4576 (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above. CastJared (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per the nominator's thorough examination of sources. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom.AShiv1212 (talk) 01:56, 5 June 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. This is not so clearly irredeemable promotion that speedy deletion is warranted. As such, notability arguments are what matter; and despite the lengthy back and forth, there remain substantive sources that have not been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qlone[edit]

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

The creator of this article is solely for the promotion of this product. And because of Cross-wiki spam is globally locked. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 00:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Internet. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 00:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because G5 quick delete does not apply to pages created by users who are only globally locked, but not blocked from the English Wikipedia. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 00:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Objection: Certainly has some qualitative shortcomings, but I do not see the requirements for a deletion met. The references here are quite remarkable and there are also real heavyweights, such as USA Today, BBC, etc. Style can be improved but for me, the article is sufficiently presented. Keep. FlyInTheOintment (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am satisfied that GNG has been met, as SIGCOV can be established following a collective assessment of the linked references Jack4576 (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though the user's intention might be promotional, it is still notable with unquestionable SIGCOV from RS. Please conduct BEFORE before nominations. Timothytyy (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was lead to here after looking at a Reddit account u/QloneApp which is non stop spam of this brand. On one of the links that they are spamming - https://www.qlone.pro/armenu - there is a message at the bottom linking to this page labelled "Trusted by Wikipedia" to give false credence to their product. I thought I'd point this out here; it does look as though this page exists simply to give repute to the product. Apologies if this doesn't belong here, but I thought it might be relevent. LordGnomeMBE (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind message. However, I respectfully disagree with the significance of your message as the link you provided is a mere standard marketing channel and acting on your personal emotions is plainly not the guideline or threshold. As others point here it provides unquestionable SIGCOV and meets GNG so I still maintain my vote to keep. FlyInTheOintment (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: The article was finally deleted on zhwiki due to advertising. Although the first creator User:JohnMcClaneSr disclosed the WP:COI, the main purpose of his account is to use Wikipedia to market related products. This user is locked globally due to Cross-wiki Spam.[39] ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 09:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC) (your AFD nomination counts as your delete vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Strong Keep: Agreed with Jack4576 and Timothy. CastJared (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Objection: Spam through and through, and there is still a lot of advertising on this version, and it hasn't improved in days. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 09:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for the benefit of whoever has to close this, it would help if some of those !voting keep could point out maybe just three in-depth and independent articles about this software. Elemimele (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:GNG of this app is met by the USA Today and Gizmodo sources. Because this app received academic attention (see Qlone#Notable uses), WP:SIGCOV is also met. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input is clearly necessary…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Maybe it needs cleaning up rather than deletion? Fad Ariff (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've cut down the article to be more neutral, if it helps at all. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia:Notability is based on the existences of sources, not the state of the article. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the latest comment of our IP contributor. The current state of the article doesn't matter, because it is fundamentally not possible to write a non-PROMO encyclopedia article exclusively from PRSOURCEs. With respect to Timothytyy, CastJared and our IP contributor here, I do not see any coverage that is significant, independent, reliable and secondary to the level required to meet our notability guidelines for organisations and companies (and their products). If the Reuters/USA Today and two Gizmodo sources are to be considered our three best sources (and I haven't really found any better), I can't see how any of the extant coverage can be considered SIGCOV. The two Gizmodo articles are essentially various levels of "hey, this thing exists, look at this youtube video they published". What about Reuters? Leaving aside the fact that just having a different person voice about 10 seconds of introduction based on what the CEO says in the next 20 seconds doesn't make that content intellectually independent (amusingly, you can almost hear the audio of the original recording under the voiceover at about 0:26/27), does it provide sufficient detail for a comprehensive article? A summary of "this is a 3D scanning app", a brief how to and the fact that the company says there will be an android version soon? Forget CORPDEPTH, that isn't enough to meet SIGCOV requirements for basically any topic. I don't think there are any sources that fail less than two of SIRS, never mind zero. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and by a wide margin. Sources are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TandyTRS80, happy to see new users at AfD but any chance of naming a few of the best ones like our IP user did? Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the warm welcome @Alpha3031.

Sure, from my long tenure in the engineering space, being featured on the BBC Click show is not something you can buy and they only select notable newsworthy tech tools. Same goes for the Apple WWDC event, they only pick notable stories.

Then you have Reuters, Gizmodo, TechCrunch, these are outstanding playbook independent outlets so if these are not considered GNG, we would need to delete most of Wikipedia. Lastly, as the IP contributor pointed out himself, there is also academic attention to the app and an ESA (European Space Agency) story which all add to real world SIGCOV. TandyTRS80 (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying your interpretation here, TandyTRS80 and I do hope you like it enough to stay (both at AfD and WP in general). I was about 260 words into a much longer response before I decided that was going to be too long but, while I agree the BBC/WWDC/ESA are good claims of significance we do actually need direct and detailed coverage to meet the Wikipedia definition of "notability", a somewhat unfortunate choice of words. The requirements of the WP:N guideline essentially derives from our core content policies, we need enough facts to extract in order to write an article without original research, and at least a couple need to be substantive enough (and intellectually as well as editorially independent of the subject) to determine due and undue weight. The "how to" content that make up a lot of the coverage is also excluded under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which details the type of content considered (in)appropriate for an encyclopedia. Reuters would be a good source, and the bulk of their content isn't going to be WP:PRSOURCE, but the specific video has indications of being that (besides being mostly direct quotes as well). TechCrunch has been discussed here before (see WP:TECHCRUNCH) and there are issues (mostly surrounding ORGIND) that prevent it from being used to establish notability. Perhaps our standards are too strict, but it's a compromise. Especially with commercial orgs and products, content that would be WP:NOT tends to be added without the strict requirements in WP:CORP. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing your detailed response @Alpha3031 and I truly appreciate your extensive experience and adherence to the WP guidelines. I’m indeed new here but as mentioned I have a strong background in the knowledge of tech and its marketing which is why I decided to contribute from my experience to try and make WP better. Let’s continue in good faith this discussion for the benefit of everyone since I feel this is a case which requires considerable debate due to its strong set of sources which I just went over again and did another extensive WP:BEFORE. The WWDC event is held once a year and has a Wiki article by itself due to its huge exposure in all worldwide media (see last night’s Vision Pro announcement for example) and they rarely showcase an app unless its unusually notable. I just watched the videos in the Article and they extensively show and discuss the subject along with mentioning Unity and Cinema4D next to it, both also have a strong Wiki presence. So I think it is by itself a significant source of WP:N. Then you have the BBC which extensively covered the subject in a neutral way in their tech show about Artificial Intelligence and their standard requires that if its a paid or promotional exposure it cannot be part of the show or at least to mention that since they must adhere to their ethics code standard. Same goes for Reuters which I can only assume found the app in that trade show event and decided to cover it due to their thinking its highly notable and they also didn’t mention it was promotional as required from their standards. Then you have the ESA which describes one of the most beautiful use cases mentioned in the article - scanning rocks for Mars mission and they picked this app as their tool which is a very strong indication to its importance and lastly, from an Academia standpoint, you have a growing number of articles and citations such as these:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356423862_QloneR_A_Simple_Method_to_Create_360-Degree_Photogrammetry-Based_3-Dimensional_Model_of_Cadaveric_Specimens

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332504237_CAN_AN_INEXPENSIVE_PHONE_APP_COMPARE_TO_OTHER_METHODS_WHEN_IT_COMES_TO_3D_DIGITIZATION_OF_SHIP_MODELS

https://www.cureus.com/articles/125929-virtual-reality-and-augmented-reality-in-anatomy-education-during-covid-19-pandemic#!/

And here’s another recent one from the NSTA (National Science Teaching Association):

https://www.nsta.org/connected-science-learning/connected-science-learning-november-december-2022/low-cost-user-friendly

I apologize for making this long response but I am beyond doubt it belong in WP and if you look at my recent track record on AfD you will see that I am not easily conveyed and I try to keep the strict guidelines as everyone should. If I felt I was wrong I would gladly change my mind which is only human. Thank you for your civilized discussion. TandyTRS80 (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreeing with Alpha3031. USA Today cite goes to a "Video provided by Reuters", so who really did it? In my other spot checks I'm seeing a few more promotional videos at Apple and Youtube, and a blog. In my web searches, I see mostly self-published stuff. -- Yae4 (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Went through all the refs in the article and none of them would qualify as SIGCOV on the product from a quality independent RS. There have been no other RS presented at this AfD. I did a WP:BEFORE, and found nothing that would prove GNG. I don't think another relist is going to change this situation. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing this to a Keep based on the journal sources provided above, including: [40] and [41]; having read them, it is also possible that this product's notability could improve further so a keep now for me. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's enough in-depth coverage in technical journals already referenced in the article to easily meet GNG. I have looked closely at 2 of the 34 references, and improved the links in the article to these 2 sources.

The 7-page article (ref 27) in the peer-reviewed Operative Neurosurgery (reference is excellent, referencing Qlone a dozen times); a rare (and positive) comment was even made in a follow-up issue of the journal.

The 6-page conference proceedings (ref 30) from the International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing is also excellent, mentioning Qlone no less than Forty times!!

I haven't reviewed the other 32 references, but can User:Fumikas Sagisavas withdraw this AFD? I don't understand how User:Alpha3031, User:Yae4, and User talk:Aszx5000 didn't find any GNG references or SIGCOV. Nfitz (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: I can't withdraw it for the time being. You need to verify all the 37 sources, which ones are valid introductions, which ones are just passing by, and which ones are self-promotion. In addition, the above-mentioned people do feel like they were mobilized to vote, but I have no evidence that they constitute a MEAT relationship.

If you want to keep it, just stub it, and you may need to clean up many unnecessary sources, just have a few to form an effective introduction. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verify 30+ sources? That's not how AFD works, User:Fumikas Sagisavas. If there's a couple of reliable sources, then it's a keep, or the content is moved somewhere - like EyeCue Vision Technologies. And in nearly 2 decades at AFD, I have never seen such good sources as the two I listed - two very in-depth academic papers. I don't know how you didn't see them when you did a BEFORE - given they were already in the article ... and they are quickly coming up in Proquest and Wikipedia Library as well - among other stuff. If two of the references meet GNG, for the purposes of AFD, the other 30+ are irrelevant. If the article needs cleaning it up - then you can do so. Remember that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. If you have no issues with those 2 references I discussed (or do you?), you should at least put in a keep vote; withdrawing is technically difficult with the 3 delete votes. Nfitz (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:3REFS, please point out 3 sources that have in-depth, reliable and independent coverage. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two is more than sufficient when the references are such high quality; but there's more. I see that User:TandyTRS8 lists 2 other Sources above - the NSTA article is particularly good. However User:Yae4, the third-best one I've come across (and I'm finding this by doing my own BEFORE and then finding they are already referenced in the article) is reference 33 - the 8-page paper in the peer-reviewed journal Clinical Anatomy; I'll improve the links to that reference in the article. Nfitz (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Nfitz, I had not written anything about the journal articles as consistent with GNG and CORP (which is generally applied to products) primary research, even if they are independent, are generally considered less useful in establishing notability. Since it has been brought up though, I will write something re. depth of coverage also once ~~I reach a computer.~~ eventually, assuming this discussion doesn't close before then, not that I expect it to make much difference. The Operative Neurosurgery article I do not consider to have meaningful coverage even discounting primary/secondary, and ISPRS is a solid maybe. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC) amended 14:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Mentioning" or "referencing" is not necessarily "in depth" or "significant" coverage, but I agree that conference report is one example of significant coverage. -- Yae4 (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an article in a peer-reviewed technical journal - with a positive follow-up comment by others, is not primary. But if there are concerns, see reference 33, which I mention in my response above. Nfitz (talk) 18:50, 7 June 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. Star Mississippi 14:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Le Mythe de la 5ème île[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

11 years since the last AfD, and I'm not convinced it meets WP:NFILM, could not find any significant coverage despite people in the last AfD saying there are sources. The French article has only 1 source too. LibStar (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rarher keep. Noted for its ’deconstructionist’ approach of the reality of Comoros in this article, that has a much more developped assessment of the film than the source in the page. Quoted in a book about cinema from the Réunion. It’s 60 min long, the first of this filmmaker and he repeatedly refers to it in interviews, as one would expect. It was screened at the Tarifa festival and at the Moroni O Mcezo 2007 festival (where the audience is said to have disliked it or not understood it, at least, in the article mentioned above).— MY, OH, MY! 09:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the reasons provided by MY, OH, MY. Has been screened at local festivals of significance. We should be cautious about deleting articles already parsed by AfD in this manner Jack4576 (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change plus notability is more strict in WP than 11 years ago at the time of the last AfD. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that the notability shifts affect this article, given the apparent local cultural significance demonstrated by local festival viewings. Notability has been demonstrated previously, and once notable always notable Jack4576 (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

once notable always notable absolutely false. There are some articles that have survived an AfD in the past, that have been deleted in a subsequent AfD. If what you say is true, Wikipedia would not allow renominations for AfD. LibStar (talk) 07:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once notable always notable. See: WP:NTEMP

The idea of 'once notable always notable' is entirely compatible with AfD being re-opened. "from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable"

I don't think the above is met here. I think this film being screened at local festivals established its notability years ago; and thus we should regard the film as continuing to have notability now. Jack4576 (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no French sources for the film that I can find, the FR wiki article is using the same single ref as here. It may have been notable, but isn't currently. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of sources, fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 21:56, 1 June 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 Carbon sink. ✗plicit 04:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon positive[edit]

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

This article is about one person's perspective on carbon dioxide removal. It talks mainly about the article "Carbon Is Not The Enemy", which may be notable itself, but then also attempts to discuss the concept of "carbon positive". The problem is that the term can't be accurately covered when the topic is written from the perspective of McDonough's article. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 04:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Environment. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 04:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to carbon sink. Ultimately, this could be a useful redirect term for someone searching for the term carbon sink but not really knowing the exact terminology. That said, I could see this being a case for delete then redirect. The article comes across as very promotional, and the creator looks like they're closely tied to McDonough from what little I can see. The term itself as they try to use it is a bit of a WP:NEOLOGISM, and there isn't notability for the article as it stands. The word itself is also a bit troublesome since what they really seem to be alluding to is net negative carbon, which can be a bit counterinuitive if you're using "carbon positive". Either way, redirecting to somewhere that focuses on carbon source/sink would get readers in the right place without confusing them with an article like this. KoA (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per KoA. Artem.G (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. 2001:4455:636:D900:94A8:7FBB:249D:9ECA (talk) 12:33, 2 June 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) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Narendra Modi[edit]

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

Does wikipedia need a page just for bibliography ? Bibliography of every wiki article is mentioned right in the article itself, usually below the reference section. Portwoman (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Portwoman (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @Portwoman: We have 291 such pages on the encyclopedia: Special:PrefixIndex/Bibliography_of. Some are topical bibliographies, while others are biographical, such as Bibliography of Richard Nixon. This would make sense as a standalone page if it were spun off from the main article Narendra Modi for page size reasons, and a fair number of the biographical bibliographies are for world leaders. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, let's close this discussion. Portwoman (talk) 06:28, 29 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) 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

H. D. Phillips[edit]

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

There seems to be only very short passing mentions for this person. The Tips of Apmh 03:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Law. The Tips of Apmh 03:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: His term on the Madras Legislative Council may be an WP:NPOL position (state/province-wide legislative position), but I'm not that familiar with the government of India in that era so I could be wrong.

TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes NPOL by virtue of serving on the Madras Legislative Council but in addition looks like a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra passes WP:NPOL as a member of the Madras Legislative Council and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes WP:NPOL. Did the nominator read the article? Curbon7 (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the sound reasons stated by the last three users. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:51, 30 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 nominator withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrecking Ball (Overwatch)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article reception primarily focused on discussing a fictional character in the sense of a gameplay element from the game they originated in. No indication that their gameplay gave them notability outside of the game itself, nor proper discussion of the character to provide SIGCOV. Attempting to find sources that were not about gameplay ended up fruitless as well. Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. --Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep I'm seeing far less SIGCOV than initially assumed in the first deletion discussion, but I still think there are enough sources buried in there to squeak (lol) past notability. Specifically, I am looking at PC Gamer, IGN and Polygon, all of which have decent commentary about the character and their gameplay's implications in competitive play. There's a "making of" article on PCGamesN that isn't entirely interview. I still think the case is rather weak since the character themselves has little in the way of development, but there was definitely a flurry of coverage when he was introduced. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SIGCOV shown through the expanded development section. Reception is important but not the only way a video game character can be notable. --Masem (t) 18:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep since the first afd discussion, people might already did show useful sources for its notability. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 00:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw While I disagree about the dev info giving notability, consensus seems to be to give the little guy a chance so I'm not going to draw this out. I am going to tag that reception section for expansion though.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:22, 30 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 Characters of Overwatch. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Winston (Overwatch)[edit]

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

Article reception primarily focused on discussing a fictional character in the sense of a gameplay element from the game they originated in. No indication that their gameplay gave them notability outside of the game itself, nor proper discussion of the character to provide SIGCOV. Attempting to find sources that were not about gameplay ended up fruitless as well. Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. --Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:03, 29 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 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I hate merging a monkey, but KFM spitting. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gorillas are not monkeys they are apes xp GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We all return tho - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just started searching for sources a week ago (with credit to GlatorNator for finding a good amount as well), and it wasn't fruitless as the article now uses almost double the amount as prior to last week. I stated in talk page I'll continue to look for sources, as GlatorNator and ferret raised concerns about the ones not quite clearing GNG criteria. But I've also have had to address GlatorNator finding sources for Mercy and D.Va articles, as well as helping out on the Sombra article. And now am in the middle of addressing AfD for Pharah, notability tagging on Kiriko, and GlatorNator's found sources for Brigitte. If you go through the edit histories of those articles, I'm the main editor on most of them (main exception being Sombra), and doing all of this in such a short window of time is rather just a touch overloading imo. Not to mention other there are other Overwatch-related articles, Hanzo and Doomfist, that while I haven't really contributed to I have been notified about the taggings of their respective issue, so I wonder why aren't we allowing for more time to be taken on these improvements, as opposed to just rushing through these processes? (Initial notability tagging on Winston is only from earlier this month, for instance. If I can get around to it, I will try my best to find sourcing for this article, but I've already mentioned my priority being the AfD on Pharah, then addressing the Kiriko article, and then the Brigitte one. For now, I found this [source https://killscreen.com/previously/articles/winston-science-gorilla-charge/] which isn't centered on the character's gameplay. I guess I'll formally express my take to Keep this, for now, but yeah. Soulbust (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Ferret sources analysis [42]. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 05:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others. When this article was made, it was done in a way that ignored whether or not the character was notable. Wikipedia is not a fan wiki. While others tried to improve the article, they should have simply questioned why it existed. Editors should be strongly cautioned that mere mentions in titles of articles does not equal significant coverage within the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per my prior source analysis and Kung Fu Man. It's even worst that a source like this Killscreen article is being touted as sigcov here at this AFD. For one, Killscreen says up front that they were indiscriminate and wrote such an article for *every* character of Overwatch. In short, this is non-independent coverage of the game, they did it for every single character. Let's pretend it was independent though. This is possibly the most terrible source anyone could offer to me when trying to prove notability. It offers a brief description of how the character looks cloaked in meme-speak jokes. There's no discussion of the character's development, back story, strengths or weaknesses in gameplay, change history, player reception, nothing. -- ferret (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It's laughable to consider Killscreen a reliable source as the article is not even written from a neutral point of view. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The appearances section is bloated, and there's only a bit of dev stuff that can have this in the main list article. --Masem (t) 18:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Kill Screen source doesn't need to be neutral, since it's opinionated and can simply be included in the prose in a way that clarifies that. But it's not laughable to consider something a reliable source when it's listed as such...

I don't get the language we're using here. "Being touted", I didn't even call it sigcov in my previous comment, just mentioned that I found the source. Looking at it closer, I don't see how it wouldn't count as significant coverage when the WP:GNG pretty clearly defines its criteria. The Kill Screen source meets it by directly and in detail discussing the subject (Winston). If you or others disagree with it being SIGCOV that's fine, but what does it matter that Kill Screen wrote one on every character? This has no relevance or weight when it comes to any criteria that'd apply here. Is it really an outlandish concept that a media outlet writes about characters in media? How is it non-independent? Kill Screen isn't affiliated with Blizzard. Unless we are going to consider any video game media outlet "non-independent" for covering video games? (which yes, obviously, they'd have at least some interest in doing so).

"When this article was made, it was done in a way that ignored whether..." No, I didn't ignore anything. I simply disagree with your opinion, and that's fine. It was seven years ago when the threshold (not the officially defined one in guidelines and policies, but more so how the community feels and holds accountable the articles in the WP:VG space) was obviously different (not to mention, I'd be seven years younger and admittedly more eager to make articles on VG topics back then). I don't look at just the titles... I'm the one sifting through sources to even cite, when writing this article. I know this isn't the Overwatch fandom wiki, and so I don't try to include any and every piece of trivia. Just core gameplay concepts, development history, reception, and media appearance (comics, animations, etc.) that are from reliable sources. Nothing crazy or out of the usual for something on Wikipedia. I think the character has a place in a stand-alone article, but others firmly disagree. Cool with me.

My sensibilities lean more to include information about Winston here on the stand-alone article. Not officially policy or guideline, but I know some editors like and lean toward the WP:THREE suggestion. Maybe there isn't three sources that everyone else is satisfied with counting as sigcov. (But I would lean toward a suggestion (that I don't think has had a WP essay written up about, like how WP:THREE exists): There's at least one though and a whole lot of supplemental sourcing showing Winston with a tangible (as possible for a fictional character) presence. I'm of the mindset that in concert with each other, the linked source with legitimate and more than plenty supplemental sourcing works to create an article that is obviously more than just skin and bones.

But I'm not stupid or oblivious. I felt that much more with the Bastion one than this Winston one, and the former was merged/redirected. Lots of merge votes here already so I definitely expect this to be redirected, so I don't have anything else to add to this discussion or the article. Don't mind if we wrap this one as a redirect and merge early, or if it goes the standard week. Soulbust (talk) 19:14, 29 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 has been withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

El Piñal, Táchira, Venezuela[edit]

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

This is not a complete article - should be in draft/user space (full of notes by the author, no sources/very little actual content, etc). Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - misunderstood time of creation of article. Article has already been expanded to resolve concerns. Error on my part, and I apologize. --Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GEOLAND. Mccapra (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course it's not a complete article, you tagged it for deletion about 15 minutes after it was created. 15 minutes is not enough time to create a well-referenced article. Please don't jump the gun here and tag "just created" articles for deletion unless there are major problems, especially when looking at articles created by prolific content creators. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GEOLAND. Please don't tag articles just after they were created, usually just tag them for notability and wait a day or so for any improvement before deletion. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I apologize; I missed the time of creation - I thought I had set the new page feed to sort oldest at the top and it seems I did the reverse. I retract the nomination. I will certainly be more careful in the future. --Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW, and now that the nomination has been withdrawn. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:29, 29 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 04:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha Ochuwa Tella[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, appears PROMO. The student jewelers association seems to be a non-notable group, the rest of what's given isn't important for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Fashion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very clearly not a notable person.
Hadal1337 (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:50, 29 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Vaughn[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:Athlete or the general notability guideline - the article itself has no sources, and states that he only played one game; a quick google search only finds database results not actual in-depth coverage. Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: sources have been found and the article has been improved drastically. Happy to withdraw the nomination since the issues that caused it have been resolved. --Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCOV here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find! (For future reference in my own searching, how did you find that so quickly?) However, I believe we would need multiple sources like that one to satisfy WP:Athlete. If you think sources can be found though, I believe you since you edit football topics far more than I do. Do you want to add the information from your source into the article or should I? Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Normally when there's a historical topic for deletion from either the US or Canada I search Newspapers.com, and sometimes after that NewspaperArchive. That was the best source I located, but I saw a lot of other shorter ones so I think this might pass WP:NBASIC - I may expand this later. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nerd1a4i: I performed a decent expansion of the article, and while working on it was able to locate additional in-depth sources here (more than a decade after his career), here, here and here. Would you be willing to withdraw this nomination? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely yes - looks great now! Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some more about his signing and his release off the team. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NBASIC and WP:GNG, see above sources and the expansion performed on the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:34, 30 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 04:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crayons (film)[edit]

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

Could not find any other sources from what was listed in the article. The entire article is balancing on a single Deccan Chronicle article. The other Marunandan Malayalee source may be notable but given that the company who wrote that page's article was deleted, it is not clear it that page is notable. The Deshabhimani source simply lists the film's cast and crew. Nowrunning, which reviews many Malayalam-language films, did not review this film. There are no reliable reviews for this film.

The only other thing that could make this film notable is the fact that it was considered for a national award. DareshMohan (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Deccan Chronicle article is in-depth and SIGCOV, GNG met easily Jack4576 (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DreamRimmer (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article doesn't meet WP:GNG and there is no reliable critic reviews.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Monhiroe (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Need multiple sources to meet GNG, otherwise fails WP:NFILM. LibStar (talk) 09:55, 1 June 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 04:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Chandrodaya Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Still zero evidence of notability. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: have you performed BP:BEFORE, including a search for local print sources? Jack4576 (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found in gnews or gbooks. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no decent coverage found, even when searching "चन्द्रोदय उच्च मा.बि तथा बहुमुखी क्याम्पस" Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 29 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 01:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Petroulakis[edit]

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

Not finding much significant, in-depth coverage. Article has been in a poor state since 2009; all but the bare bones are uncited. Gnews is giving me four hits but three are just a list of names; GBooks also just seems to have passing references to some works. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The cited source never mentioned the subject and found no significant coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. --Loewstisch (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - THIS would seem to count towards fulfillment of GNG. Carrite (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything for this person. The link above is ok, but we need more than that to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are some mentions of the person in footnotes in Gbooks and mentions in a few peer-reviewed articles, so they are very likely notable. I can't find anything in English sources, perhaps in a Greek search we might find some. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 29 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.

[1] Flynn, Terry (July 9, 1993). "Service-employees union leader becomes president of District 925". The Cincinnati Enquirer; Cincinnati, Ohio. Retrieved 2023-05-13.

[2] ttps://medienorge.uib.no/statistikk/medium/avis/253

[3] ttps://www.statista.com/statistics/633186/ranking-of-printed-newspapers-in-norway-by-circulation/

[1]

[1]

[2]