Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 20	April 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Somali Police Force#Haramad Special Police Force. Daniel (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haramad Special Police Force[edit]

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

This was just accepted via AfC (see User_talk:Bkissin#Haramad_Special_Police_Force but Bkissin wasn't aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abdiaziizho/Archive. It is not technically a G5 although I read it as such, so bringing it here for more eyes. Would not object to a redirect to Somali_Police_Force#Haramad_Special_Police_Force although that is unsourced. I don't know if any editors here who read Somali but please feel free to ping them here without a canvassing concern as there is literally nothing but the above and some mirrors in an English ~~source~~ search. Star Mississippi 23:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Police, and Somalia. Star Mississippi 23:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Close enough to G5 for me. Frankly, we should put a note on a sock blocked's drafts so that they don't come up like this. Or delete them when blocking. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per nomination. Also to add on sockpuppet (re)creation by sockpuppets I'd leave the draft open to catch newer sockpuppets.--A09|(talk) 20:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Roden[edit]

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

Autobiography of an individual who does not yet meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, as there are not multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of him. See source assessment below. Jfire (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
"WNY College Activists Hope to Change New York State Organ Donation to Opt-Out"			Roden is not mentioned	✘ No
"NYS Assembly Bill Search"	Primary source			✘ No
"Opt-Out Organ Donation"	Primary source			✘ No
"The Ins and Outs of Organ Donation"		~ Blog from medical institution	Roden is not mentioned	✘ No
"College Students Push for More Organ Donations"			Only a quote from Roden	✘ No
"New York State Legislature Passes Living Donor Support Act"		Press release		✘ No
"Students push to change organ donor registry in hopes of saving more lives"			Only a quote from Roden	✘ No
"Youth Coalition For Organ Donation Strives to Save Lives"		Press release		✘ No
"TEDxTulane"	TEDx Talk by Roden			✘ No
"WNY Teens Nominated for American Red Cross Award"			Nomination for non-notable award	✘ No
"Former Erie County Executive Joel Giambra receives new kidney"			Roden is not mentioned	✘ No
"Loyola team wins honorable mention in the global “Students Reinventing Cities” competition"	University press release			✘ No
"ODAC: Voices Amplified Fireside Chat with Evan Roden"	Podcast with Roden			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, Politics, and New York. Jfire (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave supporting sources out of this, so skip things like the bill text and citations for references to NY's lower relative rate of donor designation, only focusing on significant coverage of Roden (me; COI already declared, but I'll use third person here). If there's an issue with a small number of sources, tags may be more appropriate, including the autobiog tag. I've only been at this for a few years, so feel free to share any guidance as I work through objecting to this change.

The first piece, "WNY College Activists Hope to Change New York State Organ Donation to Opt-Out'" is a video about the group Roden formed, a bill Roden authored, and interviews Roden starting at 0:52, and is the largest of the interviewees.

The second, "College Students Push for More Organ Donations," includes an extensive interview with Roden, along with an attached article with quotes from him and descriptions of his background.

The third, a press release from Waitlist Zero, supports the claim that Roden was directly involved with the bill.

The fourth, "Students push to change organ donor registry in hopes of saving more lives," which also includes a correlate article with a quote from Roden, spends the bulk of the included news reel on an interview with him, starting at 0:31.

The fifth, a Tedx Talk by the subject, is significant, notable coverage.

The sixth, "WNY Teens Nominated for American Red Cross Award," covers a notable award given to Roden by an arm of an international non-profit.

The seventh, "Former Erie County Executive Joel Giambra receives new kidney," includes a discussion of the former politician's involvement with Roden's non-profit during the included video interview.

The Eighth, "ODAC: Voices Amplified Fireside Chat with Evan Roden," is a long-form interview of Roden, again, meeting the Significant Coverage bar. Evanroden1 (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIRS per the source assessment table. Interviews generally fail SIRS as they are not independent; we don't care what the subject says about themself, we care what others have written about the subject. UtherSRG (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source table is very clear-cut about the reliability of the sources and their contribution towards notability. It may also be stating the obvious, but I think User:Evanroden1 might have a COI in advocating for this article to be kept. GraziePrego (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the ref table. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIRS. Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself or your endeavors. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No independent reliable sources. Contributor892z (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clear WP:AUTO FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Anyone is free to create a redirect if they see it fit. ✗plicit 14:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWBK-LP[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a more complicated one than a clearly-non-notable LPTV—which, to be clear, this very much is—should be. Obviously there is no independent notability here; in and of itself the only known programming on this analog license was TBN, and its post-TBN history seems to have mostly been on paper and off the air. But along the way it did spawn a digital companion channel that survives to this day. But WWBK-LD ended up becoming an equally-non-notable HC2/Innovate station and a separate article for that was redirected at AfD. There is zero reason to retain even one article on this (these should have been merged years ago, if only to have had one less AfD on this subject), and I'm leaning towards delete, but this arguably could be redirected to the list of stations owned by Innovate Corp. as an {{R avoided double redirect|WWBK-LD}}. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gransito Movie Awards 2008[edit]

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

Perpetually unreferenced article lacks coverage, fails WP:GNG. Οἶδα (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it lacks the same coverage:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Οἶδα (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Internet, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If the award itself is not notable, neither would a listing of awardees per year. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Why? I Ask it's the award which is obscure and not notable (eg. no idea if it still exists, and if not when it was cancelled). Cavarrone 06:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The website was last up in 2009[1], after which it was seemingly usurped. It appears to have been the only source (as an external link)[2], likely indicating self-promotion. No reliable, independent sources can be found on the topic, and thus it should not have a separate article (which was deleted 2017). These sub-articles should have gone with it. Οἶδα (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Dexter Reed[edit]

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

Non notable event Jax 0677 (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This has been widely reported in reliable sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - WP:NOTNEWS. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Editors are encouraged...to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events", per WP:NOTNEWS. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Police, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A brief burst of news coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. Wikipedia is not a database of murders or other news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The surge of coverage occurred weeks after the event. There are sources that analyse the event as well. And there are still sources published as recently as 2 hours ago, definitely sustained coverage. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red pilled media has been all over this because the left has been asking the same stupid question: "how can police justify nearly 100 shots, when all Reed did was empty his clip at a cop first?" Both sides will milk this for a long time. (Grady Judd said, "That's all the bullets we had, or we would have shot him more".) Magnolia677 (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of sources. Would meet WP:GNG. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be widely reported. Inexpiable (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WE&H; sources are still coming in. Queen of ♡ | speak 03:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: many reliable sources and significant in-depth coverage FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janaratna[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. No evidence of any usage beyond a single conference presentation. WP:BEFORE reveals no potential sources. Tagged for notability for a decade. Jfire (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Jfire (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Per nominator this is a newly invented term with no record of coverage or even usage outside the article now under discussion. Central and Adams (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Invented term with zero records anywhere. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No records found. Grabup (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Trade Exchange[edit]

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

Article was created evading a salting. No real evidence of notability - none of the sources provide in-depth, independent coverage * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP/WP:SIRS. On WP:LIBRARY all available sources are press releases, like those already representing most of the sources in the article. Jfire (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Consortium of Intelligence Professionals[edit]

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

No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NORG/WP:SIRS. No reliable sources in article and nothing in WP:LIBRARY. Jfire (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arshad Adnan[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor and film producer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for actors or film producers. This was speedy deleted in March for not properly sourcing a strong notability claim, and was then recreated just over a week ago -- but the notability claim isn't stronger or better-sourced than the first time.
Two of the eight footnotes are just redundant reduplication of two of the others, so there are really only six distinct sources -- but four of them are just here to verify his family relationships to other notable people, rather than to demonstrate his notability, and of the just two sources that link him to film, one just briefly namechecks his existence without being about him in any non-trivial sense. Which leaves just one source that's actually contributing any WP:GNG points, but that's not enough.
As always, neither actors nor film producers get automatic notability freebies just because their work exists -- and notability is not inherited, so he isn't automatically entitled to an article just because of who his parents are, either -- but the article claims nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable at all, and isn't sourced anywhere near well enough to get him over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bangladesh. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Don’t think he is notable for now. Sources are just passing mentiones and not claiming notablity. Grabup (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confused A search finds his name in some reliable sources. However, there are discussions about his films or dramas, rather than about him personally. Ontor22 (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He might meet Wikipedia's notability requirement under Socialite Category and Sustained Category.Crampcomes (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is some mentions but i don't see any WP:SIGCOV. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of National Geographic original programming as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 21:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going Ape[edit]

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

This article was previously deleted after an expired PROD. I could not find significant coverage of this documentary in reliable sources. I could not find any critical reviews. The New York Times source states, in full: "This three-part series looks at the way humans mimic chimpanzee behavior, starting with the power walk and dominance posture of the alpha male." The Futon Critic is a press release. A redirect to National Geographic Channel might be appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Animal, Science, Behavioural science, Psychology, and Social science. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article should probably be marked as a stub in need for more references. As a National Geographic TV show featuring renowned primatologist and presenter Charlotte Uhlenbroek, it must have had coverage and reviews in media. The New York Times link is an example. JohnMizuki (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JohnMizuki, I conducted a search and the only coverage of the show are brief announcements like the one in the NYT. A one sentence description is not significant coverage. The source's that you've added do not contribute to notability. The National Geographic sources are not independent and TV Guide is a one sentence description with links to find where to watch the show online.
One way to establish notability would be to provide the three best sources that you can find. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding new sources that have been added: Broadway World is a NatGeo press release; OC Register has only three sentences about Going Ape: "This three-part series examines how similar human behavior is to that of our primate cousins. The show uses hidden cameras, social experiments and footage of apes and monkeys in the wild to show how human social behavior mirrors that of other species."; and Gizmodo is one sentence followed by a couple paragraphs quoting from a NatGeo press release description of the show.
I will also add that I conducted my WP:BEFORE search on Google, Google News, and Newspapers.com, and the only sources I could find were one or two sentence TV Guide-type listings in newspapers, similar to the NYT. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the newly added citations, it seems to fail GNG. Nearly all of the sources (other than PRs) make brief mentions of the show. It lacks in-depth independent analysis/coverage from a reliable major pub. X (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of National Geographic original programming. Fails WP:GNG as a standalone article. Available independent sources are only short descriptions from TV listings, not significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Iran women's international footballers. Owen× ☎ 21:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bayan Mahmoudi[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Iran women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Iran. JTtheOG (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The Persian version also does not have more than 1 citation. Yolandagonzales (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of diplomatic missions of Guinea#Europe. Owen× ☎ 21:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Guinea, London[edit]

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

Article contains no content other than location and former location of the embassy. Lacking any secondary sources, only source is government listing of diplomatic missions. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a quick Google search I can't find anything useful, so perhaps this should not be standalone. Best WP:ATD I can see is redirecting to List of diplomatic missions of Guinea#Europe. —Kusma (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (NB this could have been done – or at least tried – without an AfD). I was going to suggest Foreign relations of Guinea as a target, but the target suggested by Kusma is probably better. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article merely confirms it exists. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kusma. Not notable enough for an article, but a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WiX[edit]

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

This article does not meet the criteria set out in WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSOFT. The majority of sources used are primary sources and therefore considered unreliable, such as the official website of Rob Mensching, the developer of WiX, wixtoolset.org, and Microsoft blogs directly related to the article's topic. The remaining sources are also unreliable blogs. There is a lack of acceptable sources in the article. While the topic may be important for Microsoft, it does not meet Wikipedia's standards without extensive and detailed coverage from authoritative sources that could help establish its notability. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is a reason why WiX is notable within software history with being the first open-source project developed by Microsoft (diverging from their profit-centric closed source model), but similar to other installer technologies and like most technical niches, detailed coverage is unlikely to be found outside of the industry, especially with it being a Microsoft-centric tech. A large number of results are found on Google Scholar where it appears in a number of technical books [3]. TubularWorld (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the nominator's edit history, I'm a little worried that there is some sort of vendetta, ulterior motives or conflict of interest going on here where aside from creating a couple of Armenian articles this editor appears to just be trying to delete installation technology-related articles, such as comments made by User:Vlad on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InstallAnywhere. Many of the articles that the nominator has suggested for deletion have been on Wikipedia for many years - in the case of this WiX article it must rank among the oldest articles having been started in 2004, so my question is why are these all being nominated for deletion all of a sudden? TubularWorld (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your observation, I've tried looking for this deletionist user, as far as I can remember I hadn't intersected with her anywhere else (for such vendetta / ulterior motives) and while from the login / name she's obviously Armenian, I really don't know why she wants all these technology articles deleted. With IA it finished finally with a redirect, so the history's not lost, but even I know WiX is more known than IA (InstallAnywhere). --Vlad|-> 10:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TubularWorld also, an interesting fact is that she doesn't like versions history in such articles, sometimes these sections are important in terms of size of text, deleting this first would make the article smaller as it used to be, then more prone to be deleted. --Vlad|-> 10:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's secondary sources elsewhere including at least two dedicated books and coverage in other books, at least one web article. Just needs to be cleaned up so it isn't only cited to some guy's blog. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WikiPedia is highly referenced in Google, when searching for pretty much anything, the en.wiki article (if it exists) is returned in the first 10 results (if not the first 5). It's a pity to click to such a link only to discover it has been deleted and / or transformed into a redirect! --Vlad|-> 14:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid reason for keeping. If this were true, no articles would ever be deleted. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This obviously meets GNG. X (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mente[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union referee, to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Colby[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union referee, to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True Britt[edit]

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

Article about the Autobiography of Britt Ekland, while she herself is clearly notable - her autobiography fails BOOKCRIT. Claim of being "best selling" is not held up. Contents of the article has no commentary on the book (sales figures, reviews etc) and just has a few quotes, with subjective inferences. Current sources are the book itself and a broken link to blogspot. Only reviews I could find were on GoodReads and such (NYT review about different book - happens to mention title in headline - that took me a while to figure out). The book may or may not be a valuable source for the Britt Ekland article, but doesn't warrant an article of its own. -- D'n'B-t -- 13:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. -- D'n'B-t -- 13:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a page entirely lacking in independent and reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britt Ekland: It was verifiable that the book is on existence. I would say the best option is to redirect to the author since it's always with WP:PRESERVE and ATD. Yes! There is a problem of SIGCOV and WP:NBOOK, but that shouldn't be a "wake up call" to deletion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Likewise the nominator, the author is a notable writer or in related field, and so, her book should be a redirect prior to what we see happens in such cases on Wikipedia. There could be in the future detailed reference to the book. So, redirecting to the main author is the 'perfect' way to justify this deletion discussion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this. Geschichte (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The book was mentioned in the media, but mainly by conveying gossip, so the reliability and significance is questionable. For the same reason, I don't think it should be redirected. Geschichte (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Romania[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Romania. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE as does any of the other articles in this category. Halfadaniel (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It is not an EPG because it doesn't list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules. We should also delete all these articles: Category:Lists of sporting event broadcasters ??? What is the difference? Cetateanul Rosu (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a directory. Mccapra (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Stowmarket#Governance as a reasonable ATD. Owen× ☎ 21:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stowmarket Town Council[edit]

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

No secondary sources. Lowest-tier local government authority in England, parish councils are rarely notable enough for an article. AusLondonder (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some secondary sources though I'm not sure if they are enough to qualify. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's nothing particuarly worth saying about this council. There doesn't seem to be much information about the award they recieved and it seems similar to those run-of-the-mill industry awards that aren't generally considered notable or pointing towards notability. ---- D'n'B-t -- 08:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If not notable if could be merged with Stowmarket. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stowmarket#Governance as an AtD and where the Council is already mentioned. Unlikely notability will be established. A merge would unbalance the Stowmarket article; lists of non-notable past mayor's names and a list of current councillors aren't normally included within articles on the settlement. Rupples (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Zinovyev (footballer)[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP. Few sources exist in Google, Google Books, JSTOR, TWL, and others. 2003 LN 6 18:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 2003 LN 6 18:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be much to go on here. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I noticed some football players doesn't meet WP:SPORTSBIO & WP:SPORTSCRIT, with reference to databases which is not WP:SIGCOV. Unfortunately, this is one of them! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Weissacher[edit]

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

Highly promotional piece written by a UPE. PROD declined. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, Austria, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — reeks of self-promotion; prod declined, like on Renzo Vitale, by a single-purpose sockpuppet, hopefully only delaying the inevitable deletion. — Biruitorul ^Talk 19:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO tional article. DrowssapSMM 02:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Agree 100% with what's already been stated MaskedSinger (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shastri Nagar, Goregaon[edit]

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

This is a subarea of a suburb of Delhi, whose The only Shastri Nagar I can find is one in Delhi. There is no evidence that this place is legally recognized or defined. Hence, WP:NPLACE does not apply, and this fails WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Everybody[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This AfD request was posted on the AfD talk page by IP user 128.82.18.1, who states:
It is an unnecessary disambiguation page per WP:ONEOTHER that could be replaced with hatnotes as there are only two pages with this title and it is already served with the parenthetical identifier.
This a procedural nomination and I am neutral. 2 different IPs have also attempted to PROD this article, so let's just get this discussion out of the way. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly reasonable dab with seven entries. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:CSK#3. WP:ONEOTHER refers to one other topic, not one other article. This is a perfectly reasonable disambiguation page. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I already made additions to fix the WP:ONEOTHER problem yesterday, so there's no need for this article to be deleted or have PROD templates placed on it anymore. B3251 (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bosnia and Herzegovina–United Kingdom relations. Owen× ☎ 21:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina, London[edit]

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

No content other than stating the embassy exists. Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources, single source is government list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bosnia and Herzegovina–United Kingdom relations. There is functionally no information to merge. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per IgantiusofLondon although List of diplomatic missions in London would also make a good target (I'd be happy with either). Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sporting Clube da Praia players[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list of mostly non-notable people fails to meet the criteria defined by the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Football. Let'srun (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The player base from most of the club's history is completely impossible to verify, the list is utterly impossible to maintain and the vast majority of entries on the list would be amateur footballers that fail WP:GNG individually. People that do meet GNG individually, and whose playing for SC Praia we have verified, can be collected in a category. Geschichte (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per similar AfD (CD Travadores players). Svartner (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant list filled with unsourced materials and non-notable players. X (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaney Willemse[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There's this and a couple of other bits, but one more good source would be nice for a keep. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 15:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No SIGCOV. I'd have leaned for a !keep if WP:THREE was met, but I couldn't find any RS with significant coverage. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Procedural close as the page has been draftified. (non-admin closure) IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil Kusiima[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphysical terms in the works of René Guénon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT as a collection of quotes used as "definitions". While we can have glossaries on Wikipedia, this one doesn't provide anything but quotes rather than actual secondary analysis of the terms used, and doesn't necessarily need a spinoff article. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT and WP:N - if the definitions of the terms used by this author were the subject of scholarly discussion with WP:SIGCOV, then I could see having an article on that. But his *own* definitions of his own terms doesn't seem like a notable topic for an article. Psychastes (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Business Review[edit]

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

Limited sources covering the topic extensively that may suggest its notability. It may be worth reevaluating its notability merits to stay. Donaldherald (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Donaldherald (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the three sources in the article, one is the company's Twitter page, another a page that makes no mention to the subject, and another one that may be reliable, but mostly just links a bunch of articles from the company. Other than hat, I didn't really see anything else of note. Lynch44 (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanwali[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:N. Either delete or redirect it to Dehradun Municipal Corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemant Dabral (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wards may qualify as legally recognized places per GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GEOLAND. TheTankman (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get policy-based opinions with more elaboration?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nurul Maulidi[edit]

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

This is a database entry rather than an article currently and I can't find any evidence of WP:SIGCOV in my searches. The best sources found were JPNN, Republika and Detik none of which are even close to showing significant coverage of Nurul Maulidi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Anwegmann (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm also unable to find WP:SIGCOV. WC gudang inspirasi (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sugiarto[edit]

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

Had a brief career but mostly as a substitute and I can't find any WP:SIGCOV at all in reliable sources. Bola, Viva and Tribun News all confirm that he was a real footballer but none of these are instances of actual significant coverage, which is what is required. Indonesian football was well covered at the time but little was written about Sugiarto it seems. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little to go on here. Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV and even WP:SPORTBASIC. Anwegmann (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Even as an Indonesian person myself, I could only find other people with this surname than this soccer player, failing WP:V. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of airplane accidents in Nepal. ✗plicit 12:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Manang Air helicopter crash[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of lasting effects and fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of airplane accidents in Nepal. nirmal (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to link as above. Desertarun (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WKOB-LD[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; too long; questionable sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: It clearly has a longer history than many other HC2/Innovate stations, but a good chunk of it has been relaying other stations (this was originally WCBS-TV's UHF translator back when the New York City stations all had those) or full-time national services. Maybe there's something out there at least about the station's Korean days of the 1990s and early 2000s (of note, this was not part of last year's bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles), but it's hard to imagine anything warranting anything more than an {{R to list entry}}. Probably another remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2006 in the end. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is against keeping. From among the ATD proposals, the redirect to the list of floods can't be implemented because the topic is not mentioned there, and the merger to the locality has little support. Sandstein 15:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Clarkson floods[edit]

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

This event does not meet WP:NEVENTS. This is only a minor flood with minor damage and no injuries. This will not have a lasting effect. Steelkamp (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Steelkamp (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom. No lasting impact to meet WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to be the sort of event with enduring notability. – Teratix ₵ 09:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant event that took place in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.189.11.78 (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "significant" is not a criterion for notability. You need to demonstrate how it meets WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is significant about it? Will people care about it in ten years? – Teratix ₵ 07:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Clarkson, Western Australia per nom's rationale. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:EVENTCRIT: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Not a particularly notable natural disaster. AusLondonder (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as with many unfortunate incidents or minor disasters, relevance is typically limited to the affected region/country. Without WP:SUSTAINED coverage, ideally internationally, there is no demonstrating it has a WP:LASTING effect and therefore, cannot be adjusted to be notable. I wouldn't object a condensed version being merged into Clarkson, Western Australia. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I object as well to merging with Clarkson, Western Australia. The floods covered more than just Clarkson. The article claims that Clarkson, Butler, Joondalup, Currambine, Ridgewood and Mindarie were all flooded or at least received warnings. I still think a straight up delete would be the best course of action. Steelkamp (talk) 10:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I also oppose merge. LibStar (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was more thinking that I would not have any particular concerns if it were mentioned it in an article relevant to the region, rather than a full-on entire merge (hence "condensed version"). I am not familiar with the geography of the region, but appreciate that if it affected multiple places, then mentioning in only one article would not always be appropriate (although the title of the article itself mentions Clarkson, so this seemed to be the worst affected I would imagine).

Fundamentally, my preference is in agreement to delete, which I !voted for. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Floods in Australia - I agree that its not notable on its own, and that it shouldn't be redirected/merged with the Clarkson article, but there is another reasonable redirect target --DannyS712 (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even mentioned on that list, and why should it be? It's not a very significant flood. – Teratix ₵ 07:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, 11 days after the flood and no one is talking about it anymore. It has been out of the news since 1 day after the flood. This flood simply is not very signficant. Steelkamp (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect And add to Floods in Australia, per DannyS712.12.11.109.231 (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2008#July – September. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Swat Valley bombing[edit]

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

One source only provided from time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2008#July – September (considerations from our last 20 AfDs apply). It has basically the exact same content and source already there so no need to merge anything. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2008#July – September per recent AfDs in this subject area. ~Kvng (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990–present)#Leaders. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Clouston[edit]

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

As noted in WP:NPOL, Wikipedia doesn't normally consider district or parish councillors notable enough for a separate article, unless they've received significant press coverage. Likewise, being a candidate for national office doesn't normally meet WP:NPOL, absent substantial coverage in secondary sources, and I can find only routine local press coverage. He has written for and been interviewed by some notable media, but those are WP:PRIMARY sources, and his written work doesn't yet meet WP:NAUTHOR. Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON, unless he wins a parliamentary seat in the upcoming general election. Restoring the redirect would be fine as an alternative to deletion, but I've brought it here for discussion rather than WP:BOLDly redirecting. Wikishovel (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, United Kingdom, and England. Wikishovel (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of his activities demonstrate much notability, from leading a minor party to serving as a councillor. Sourcing is not great, mostly primary sources, such as election results and his own tweets. Can't find much better. AusLondonder (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990–present)#Leaders if notability cannot be established at this point in time. May pick up coverage in the forthcoming general election. Rupples (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He hasn't held office at any level that would confer "inherent" notability under NPOL, but the article is referenced almost entirely to primary and unreliable sources and thus fails to get him over WP:GNG instead of having to pass NPOL. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but just being a candidate is not enough to already get him an article now. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Latvia[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Latvia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No merit under WP:NLIST BrigadierG (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a directory. Mccapra (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Through the Dragon's Eye. ✗plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Through the Dragon's Eye episodes[edit]

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

Looking back in articles history the sources given were links to youtube videos which were removed because of unclear copyright status - which appears to be where these plot summaries are lifted from (example ep1 matching the plot summary in this article exactly). This makes me think that the article is a possible copyvio itself. Either way the plot summaries excessive, and this is not an encylopedic list. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Lists, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to parent article Through the Dragon's Eye in it's existing "Episodes" section, but use the Template:Episode table template to organise this neater and with a condensed episode summary. I agree that it's hard to justify the need for a separate episode article for this TV series, which I recall well from my own childhood, but none the less accept the episodes themselves aren't particularly notable. I am not convinced by the WP:COPYVIO concerns as expressed by the nom, as it seems the episode summaries were written (c.2008) before they were uploaded to youtube (c.2010). If there was evidence the current episodes prose existed/exists elsewhere before being added to the article, that may then give weight to deletion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as outlined by Bungle – neither this list nor the parent article is long enough to justify a split. Some summaries may need to be trimmed after merging to comply with MOS:TVPLOT. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of diplomatic missions of France. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of France, Miami[edit]

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

A consulate office lacking secondary sources to demonstrate notability per WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and Florida. AusLondonder (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there’s no indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Embassies are not inherently notable, and consulates even less so. This one fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of France, I could see someone possibly looking for this, but it doesn't meet GNG however. Samoht27 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Concar[edit]

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

Lacking sufficient in-depth coverage in secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Sources are purely mentions of his appointments. Fails WP:NBIO. AusLondonder (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Tanzania, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable, not seeing significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three Phase Operation[edit]

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

This article is based on multiple copies of the same news story that claims to be based on anonymous sources. Rumors, in other words. I can't find anything at all at the third reference as it just points to some index page. The other three are just the same text in different places. "Three Phase Operation" is a name unknown to history. More importantly, the organization "Supreme Command of the Arab Allied Forces (SCAAF)" is also unknown to history. The piecemeal Arab irregular forces at that time did not have a central command and it certainly was not directed from Cairo. What actually happened in Katamon the day before this news story is that Jewish forces blew up the Semiramis Hotel killing at least 24 civilians. But that's not even mentioned in the news story. There is a vast literature by historians on this period of history and there are already multiple properly sourced Wikipedia articles that cover it, such as Battle for Jerusalem. We don't need articles on single obscure newspaper stories. Zero^talk 04:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Zero^talk 04:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For being almost wholly based on a random piece from Oregon local news - the sourcing would struggle to be less appropriate, and if this is the best quality available, it doesn't really attest the term or standalone notability. Not much to say here: definitely nothing approaching an encyclopedically valid topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article that doesn't have enough sources or content and doubtful more could be found MarkiPoli (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient evidence exists to suggest that "Three Phase Operation" is a notable topic, at least not under its current name. Marokwitz (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Current sourcing is just one newspaper article reprinted in multiple publications. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POVFORK. When justified, such a topic should grow organically, before being eligible to a SPINOFF. gidonb (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Engineering for Beginners[edit]

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

Does not meet either WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Has carried a Notability tag since July 2018, but independent sourcing has not been found. Prod tag was removed by the book's author, so here we are at AFD. MrOllie (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Engineering, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To my mind NBOOK and GNG are almost the same here: we need multiple reliable in-depth independent sources about the book, most likely published reviews. We don't have any and I couldn't find any. Even if we take a laxer view of NBOOK, the article's claim that this is "recommended by several universities" does not pass #4 (that is only for books that are, themselves, the object of study in courses at multiple schools, not for books used as textbooks of courses about something else). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're interested in whether secondary attention has been paid to the book, and that's not being shown. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NBOOK and SIGCOV not met. 3 reviews condition also not fulfilled. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luan Nieuwoudt[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Joyous! Noise! 00:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LooLa Adventure Resort[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is supported by a number of reliable, independent, in-depth discussion of the subject. Clearly notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For some reason, the nominator considers that all the hotels and resorts in Bintan Regency fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable resort.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Blofeld and Aymath JarrahTree 01:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Laubscher[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's this and this along with lots of other coverage in national and Manawatu local media. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough to meet WP:GNG / WP:SPORTCRIT. Paora (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient for WP:SPORTCRIT alongside significant coverage in Stuff (website). Coop (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Chianucci[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Italian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG as his career hasn't really kicked on. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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